2008 Review Water Quality Standards For Salinity River System

October 2008 Basin Salinity Control Forum

2008 REVIEW

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SALINITY COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM

October 2008

Prepared by Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM MEMBERS

ARIZONA Perri Benemelis, Manager, Office of Colorado River Management Department of Water Resources Joan Card, Director, Water Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality Larry R. Dozier, Deputy General Manager Central Water Conservation District

CALIFORNIA Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director Colorado River Board of Celeste Cantú, General Manager Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority

COLORADO Jennifer L. Gimbel, Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board Department of Natural Resources Steven H. Gunderson, Director, Water Quality Control Division Department of Public Health and Environment David W. Robbins, Attorney at Law

NEVADA Anthony Miller, Colorado River Commission of Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Kay Brothers, Deputy General Manager, Engineering/Operations Southern Nevada Water Authority

NEW MEXICO John R. D’Antonio, Jr., P.E., State Engineer State Engineer Office

UTAH Dennis J. Strong, Director, Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources John Whitehead, Assistant Director, Water Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality Randy Crozier, General Manager Duchesne County Water Conservancy District

WYOMING Patrick T. Tyrrell, State Engineer State Engineer's Office John F. Wagner, Administrator, Water Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality Dan S. Budd, Interstate Stream Commissioner

FORUM Jack A. Barnett, Executive Director Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

i ii

TRANSMITTAL LETTERS

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires that at least once every three years the Basin states review water quality standards relating to the salinity of the waters of the River. The states collectively initiated this review under the auspices of the Forum, prepared a proposed Review and, after holding public meetings, prepared this final Review.

Upon the Forum's adoption of the final Review, it is transmitted by letter to the governors of the individual states for their independent action. The following governors in each of the seven Basin states shall receive this Review:

Honorable Janet Napolitano Honorable Bill Richardson Governor of Arizona Governor of New Mexico State Capitol State Capitol Phoenix, AZ 85007 Santa Fe, NM 87503

Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger Honorable Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. Governor of California Governor of State Capitol State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Honorable Bill Ritter, Jr. Honorable Dave Freudenthal Governor of Colorado Governor of State Capitol State Capitol Denver, CO 80203 Cheyenne, WY 82002

Honorable Jim Gibbons Governor of Nevada State Capitol Carson City, NV 89701

iii

SUMMARY

This Review is a review of the water quality standards for salinity for the River. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires that water quality standards be reviewed from time to time, but at least once during each three-year period. Accordingly, the seven-state Forum has reviewed the existing state-adopted and USEPA approved water quality standards for salinity consisting of numeric criteria and a plan of implementation for salinity control for the River system. During the period of the 2005 Review, Reclamation enhanced its model to include analysis of the River salinity. The model has been used to make new salinity projections for this Review. Upon adoption by the Forum, this Review will be submitted to each of the Basin states for consideration as each state proceeds with its three-year water quality review process.

The Forum recommends no change in the numeric salinity criteria at the three stations located on the lower main stem of the River. The numeric criteria at these stations will remain:

Station Salinity in mg/L1

Below 723 Below 747 At 879

In past Reviews, the plan of implementation was intended to maintain the salinity concentrations at or below the numeric criteria while the Basin states continued to develop their compact-apportioned waters. Reclamation’s computer model runs indicate there is little probability of the numeric criteria being exceeded in the next three years. The Act requires the implementation of salinity control programs to reduce the salinity of the River. Reducing the salinity of the River will reduce economic damages. The plan of implementation accompanying the Review emphasizes the reduction of salinity levels to reduce economic damages in the Lower Basin, as well as providing benefits in the Upper Basin.

The Forum’s plan of implementation includes:

1. Completion of Reclamation, BLM, and USDA-NRCS salinity control measures to the extent that each unit remains viable and appropriately cost-effective.

2. Completion of activities implemented under the cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

3. Implementation of the Forum's recommended and adopted policies for effluent

1 Flow-weighted average annual salinity.

iv

limitations, principally under the NPDES permit program established by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act as amended. The implemented policies (included in Appendix B of this Review) are the following:

Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program;

NPDES Permit Program for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards;

Policy for Use of Brackish and/or Saline Waters for Industrial Purposes;

Policy for Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Intercepted Ground Water; and

Policy for Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Fish Hatcheries.

4. Implementation of non-point source management plans developed by the states and approved by the USEPA.

The Program is a unique cooperative watershed effort between several federal agencies and seven states designated to meet national, international and state water quality objectives. Item 1 of the plan listed above is to be implemented by federal agencies in conjunction with state, local, and private participants. The Forum works jointly with federal agencies on developing measures to be implemented. The Forum also urges Congress to ensure that the funds necessary to successfully fulfill this plan of implementation are appropriated as needed. Item 2 above involves the expenditure of cost sharing funds required by The Act to be obtained from the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Items 3 and 4 above are primarily implemented by each of the Basin states.

The water quality standards involve both a plan of implementation and numeric criteria. With the plan of implementation as proposed in this Review in place, the probability of exceeding the numeric criteria is low based on Reclamation computer model simulations. The analysis indicates the probability of exceedance of the numeric criteria with the plan of implementation in place in the next three years at the Hoover Dam, Parker Dam and Imperial Dam stations is 1% or less. This low probability of exceedance opportunity was an important factor in the Forum’s decision to adopt the plan of implementation accompanying this Review.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM MEMBERS...... i

COLORADO RIVER BASIN MAP...... ii

TRANSMITTAL LETTERS ...... iii

SUMMARY...... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... viii

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW...... 1

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND...... 1

UNDERSTANDING THE SALINITY OF THE RIVER...... 3

PROVISION FOR REVIEWING AND REVISING THE STANDARD ...... 7

NUMERIC CRITERIA...... 8

PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION ...... 9 General...... 9 Federal Programs ...... 11 States Cost Sharing and Cooperative Agreements...... 14 Forum Policies and States’ NPDES Permits...... 14 State Water Quality Management Plans ...... 15 Effect of the Plan of Implementation...... 23

CONCLUSION AND ADOPTION OF THE STANDARDS ...... 24

TABLES

Table 1 Observed Flow-Weighted Average Salinity at the Numeric Criteria Stations...... 6 Table 2 Exceedance of Numeric Criteria Probability Without Additional Controls ...... 9 Table 3 Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs...... 13 Table 4 Exceedance of Numeric Criteria Probability With Plan of Implementation...... 24

FIGURES

Figure 1 Water Year 2005 Generalized Flow and Salinity Concentrations Across the Colorado River Basin...... 4 Figure 2 Salt Concentrations at Numeric Criteria Stations ...... 5

vi

APPENDICES

Appendix A 2008 Amendment to The Act Appendix B Forum Policies Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program ...... B-1 NPDES Permit Program Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards ...... B-5 Attachment 1 - Guidance on New Construction Determination ...... B-15 Policy for Use of Brackish and/or Saline Waters for Industrial Purposes ...... B-16 Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Intercepted Ground Water ...... B-18 Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Fish Hatcheries ...... B-21 Appendix C States NPDES Permits List Legend...... C-1 List of NPDES Permits ...... C-3 Appendix D USEPA NPDES Permits List Legend...... D-1 List of NPDES Permits ...... D-3

vii

List of Abbreviations

208 Plan Section 208 of the Clean Water Act amendments of 1972 and 1977 requiring integrated area-wide plans and programs for dealing with water pollution problems Basin Colorado River Basin Basin Funds Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund and the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund Basinwide Program Basinwide Salinity Control Program BLM United States Bureau of Land Management Clean Water Act P.L. 92-500 Congress United States Congress EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program FAIRA Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (P.L. 104-127) (1996) Forum Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum FSRIA Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (P.L. 107-171) (2002) IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission maf million acre-feet MGD million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PPM parts per million Program Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Reclamation United States Bureau of Reclamation Review 2008 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System River Colorado River TDS Total dissolved solids The Act The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L. 93-320) (1974), as amended by P.L. 98-569 (1984), P.L. 104-20 (1995), P.L. 106-459 (2000) and P.L. 110-246 TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey

viii

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

This 2008 Review is prepared and submitted in response to Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act1 by the seven-state Forum on behalf of the governors of their respective states. This Review of the water quality standards includes the numeric criteria and the plan of implementation developed and adopted by the Forum. This is the eleventh triennial review conducted by the Forum. Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires that:

The governor of a state or the state water pollution control agency of such state shall from time to time (but at least once each three-year period beginning with the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. Results of such review shall be made available to the Administrator.

This Review is consistent with the USEPA approved 1975 standards and deals only with that portion of the Basin above Imperial Dam. This Review focuses on the 2008 to 2011 period and evaluates the appropriateness of the standards. Background information and activities regarding historical actions relative to the development and adoption of salinity standards is contained in the Forum report, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, June 1975.

Below Imperial Dam, salinity is controlled as a federal responsibility to meet the terms of the agreement with Mexico contained within Minute No. 242 of the IBWC entitled "Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado River." Minute No. 242 requires that measures be taken to assure that River water delivered to Mexico upstream from will have an average annual salinity concentration of no more than 115 ± 30 ppm TDS higher than the average annual flow-weighted salinity concentration of the River water arriving at Imperial Dam.

Nothing in this Review shall be construed to alter, amend, repeal, interpret, modify, or be in conflict with the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057), the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat. 774), the Colorado River Basin Project Act (82 Stat. 885), the , the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 Stat. 105), the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, or the Treaty with the United Mexican States (Treaty Series 994).

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The Basin is 242,000 square miles2 (approximately 155 million acres) of the western United States and a small portion of northern Mexico. Its waters serve some 7.5 million people within the United States' portion of the Basin, and through export provides full or supplemental water supply to another 25.4 million people outside the Basin3. The regional economy is based on irrigated agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, forestry, manufacturing, oil and gas production, recreation

1Public Law [P.L.] 92-500 as amended. 2Colorado River System, Consumptive Uses and Losses Report, 1996-2000, Bureau of Reclamation 3Computed based on 2000 U.S. Census data

1 and tourism. The river provides irrigation water to about 4.0 million acres within the United States. Hydroelectric power facilities along the River and its tributaries generate approximately 12 billion kilowatt-hours annually which is used both inside and outside of the Basin. The River also serves about 3 million people and 500,000 irrigated acres in Mexico.

Salinity caused impacts have long been a major concern in the United States and Mexico. The salinity in the River increases as it flows downstream. The river has carried an average salt load of approximately nine million tons annually past Hoover Dam, the uppermost location at which numeric criteria have been established.

The salts in the River system are naturally occurring and pervasive. Many of the saline sediments of the Basin were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. Salts contained within the sedimentary rocks are easily eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system.

In the 1960's and early 1970's, the seven Basin states4 and representatives of the federal government discussed the problem of salinity concentrations increasing in the lower reaches of the River. In a 1971 study5, the USEPA analyzed salt loading in the Basin and divided it into two categories, naturally occurring and human-caused. The USEPA concluded that about half (47 percent) of the salinity concentration measured in water arriving at Hoover Dam is from natural causes, including salt contributions from saline springs, ground water discharge into the river system (excluding irrigation return flows), erosion and dissolution of sediments, and the concentrating effects of evaporation and transpiration. The natural causes category also included salt contributions from non-point (excluding irrigated agriculture) or unidentified sources or from the vast, sparsely-populated regions of the drainage, much of which are administered by the BLM or other governmental agencies. Of the land within the Basin, about 75 percent is owned and administered by the federal government or held in trust for Indian tribes. The greatest portion of the naturally-occurring salt load originates on these federally-owned and administered lands. Human activities can influence the rate of natural salt movement from rock formations and soils to the river system and include livestock grazing, wildlife management, logging, mining, oil exploration, road building, recreation and urbanization.

Approximately 53 percent of the salinity concentration in the water arriving at Hoover Dam, as identified by the USEPA, results from various human activities. The USEPA estimated that out-of-Basin exports account for about 3 percent of the salt concentration at Hoover Dam, with irrigation accounting for 37 percent, reservoir evaporation and phreatophyte use accounting for about 12 percent, and about 1 percent attributed to municipal and industrial uses. Much of the salt load contribution from irrigated agriculture is from federally-developed irrigation projects. In 1972, the federal government enacted the Clean Water Act that mandated efforts to maintain water quality standards in the United States. At the same time, Mexico and the United States were discussing the increasing salinity of the River water being delivered to Mexico.

The Basin states established the Forum in 1973. The Forum is composed of representatives from each of the seven Basin states appointed by the governors of the respective states. The Forum was created for interstate cooperation and to provide the states with the information necessary to comply with Section 303(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act.

4Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming 5The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River, Summary Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Regions VIII and IX, 65pp., 1971

2

The USEPA promulgated a regulation in December 1974 which set forth a basinwide salinity control policy for the Basin. The regulation specifically stated that salinity control was to be implemented while the Basin states continue to develop their compact-apportioned water. This regulation also established a standards procedure and required the Basin states to adopt and submit for approval to the USEPA water quality standards for salinity, including numeric criteria and a plan of implementation, consistent with the policy stated in the regulation.

In 1975, the Forum proposed, the states adopted, and the USEPA approved water quality standards which included numeric criteria and a plan of implementation to control salinity increases in the River. The plan was designed to maintain the flow-weighted average annual salinity concentrations at or below the 1972 levels while the Basin states continued to develop their compact-apportioned water supply. Average annual salinity concentrations and salt loads were determined on a flow-weighted basis. The flow-weighted average annual salinity concentration is determined by dividing the flow-weighted average annual salt load passing a measuring station by the total annual volume of water passing the same point during a calendar year. The flow-weighted average annual salt load is calculated by first multiplying the daily salinity concentration values by the daily flow rates. These values are then summed over a calendar year. The total annual volume of water is calculated by calculating the sum of the daily flow rate.

The Forum selected three numeric criteria stations on the main stem of the lower River as being appropriate points to measure the salinity concentrations of the River. These stations are located at the following points: 1) below Hoover Dam; 2) below Parker Dam; and 3) at Imperial Dam.

UNDERSTANDING THE SALINITY OF THE RIVER

As with most large rivers, the natural flow of the River increases from its headwaters to its terminus. Starting at Hoover Dam and moving downstream, today the River flow is reduced by diversions and in normal years only 1.5 million acre-feet is scheduled to pass Imperial Dam. In general, the salinity concentration of the water in the river increases from the headwaters to the terminus. Much of the salt is picked up in the Upper Basin and some of the tributary streams average higher concentrations of salt. A map of the Basin reflecting the relative flows and the corresponding salinity concentrations of the water across the Basin in the 2003 water year is provided for general illustrative purposes in Figure 1. The average flow of the river and its important tributaries is indicated by the width of the line and the salinity concentrations are illustrated by colors coded to ranges in TDS.

3

Figure 1 – Water Year 2005 Generalized Flow and Salinity Concentrations across the Colorado River Basin

4 In general, over the last thirty years the salinity concentrations have decreased at all three of the numeric criteria stations (see Figure 2 and Table 1). In 1970, the concentrations of all three stations were at or above the numeric criteria for those stations. Now the concentrations are well below the numeric criteria. Salinity concentrations are based on TDS as the sum of constituents, whenever possible. The sum of constituents is defined to include calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, a measure of the carbonate equivalent of alkalinity and, if measured, silica and potassium. If a sum of constituents could not be computed, TDS as residue on evaporation (at 180 degrees Celsius) is substituted. Further, some reported salinity values are based on correlation with specific conductance measurements. In this Review, the terms "salinity," "TDS" and "concentration" in mg/L are used interchangeably.

The concentration of salts measured at the three numeric criteria stations has been increasing over the last few years. This trend can be observed on Figure 2. The recent and significant drought might be a factor with respect to these increases.

1000

900

800

700 TDS (mg/L) TDS

600

500

Below Hoover Below Parker At Imperial Hoover Criteria Parker Criteria Imperial Criteria

400

0 4 6 0 2 8 2 4 8 0 4 6 7 7 8 9 0 0 97 978 98 98 986 99 99 00 19 1972 1 19 1 1 1 1984 1 19 1990 1 19 1996 1 20 2002 2 20 Calendar Year

Figure 2 – Salt Concentrations at Numeric Criteria Stations

5 Table 1 Observed Flow-Weighted Average Salinity at the Numeric Criteria Stations (Total Dissolved Solids in mg/L)6

Calendar Year Below Hoover Dam Below Parker Dam At Imperial Dam (Numeric Criteria) (723 mg/L) (747 mg/L) (879 mg/L) 1970 743 760 896 1971 748 758 892 1972 724 734 861 1973 675 709 843 1974 681 702 834 1975 680 702 829 1976 674 690 822 1977 665 687 819 1978 678 688 812 1979 688 701 802 1980 691 712 760 1981 681 716 821 1982 679 713 827 1983 659 678 727 1984 598 611 675 1985 556 561 615 1986 517 535 577 1987 519 538 612 1988 529 540 648 1989 564 559 683 1990 587 600 702 1991 629 624 749 1992 657 651 767 1993 665 631 785 1994 667 673 796 1995 654 671 803 1996 618 648 768 1997 585 612 710 1998 559 559 655 1999 549 550 670 2000 539 549 661 2001 550 549 680 2002 561 572 689 2003 584 592 695 2004 625 644 729 2005 643 668 710 2006 646 673 711

2007 provisional 636 659 702

6 6 Determined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and USGS. PROVISION FOR REVIEWING AND REVISING THE STANDARD

The River water quality standards for salinity and the approach taken by the Basin states in complying with the standards are unique. The salinity concentrations that are projected in the future have not been shown to have adverse effects on human health or wildlife. Thus, the Program is different from most other water quality standards compliance programs. The standards adopted by the Forum, the Basin States and approved by the USEPA consist of the numeric criteria and the plan of implementation. The numeric criteria portion of the water quality standards are established to protect against increases in economic damages to infrastructure and crop production. The plan of implementation is designed to maintain the flow-weighted average annual salinity at or below the numeric criteria while the Basin states continue to develop their compact-apportioned water supply through projects and programs to meet water supply needs.

The Program is a basinwide coordinated effort among federal, state, and local agencies and participants to control salt loading. The Forum, in its statement of Principles and Assumptions for Development of Colorado River Salinity Standards and Implementation Plan, approved by the Forum on September 20, 1974, stated, under Principle 7:

The Plan of Implementation shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate from time to time, but at least once every three years. At the same time, the (numeric) standards, as required by Section 303 (c) (1) of P.L. 92-500 shall be reviewed for the purpose of modifying and adopting standards consistent with the plan so that the Basin states may continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters while providing the best practicable water quality in the Colorado River Basin.

The plan of implementation is not intended to offset the salinity fluctuations that are a result of the River’s highly variable annual flows (natural variations in the hydrologic cycle). Analyses have shown that the impact of natural variations in the hydrologic cycle can have a significant impact on salinity. These natural variations in runoff can cause a fluctuation in average annual salinity concentration of as much as 350 mg/L TDS at Imperial Dam. Recognizing the variability of the River, the plan for maintaining the criteria is developed using a long-term mean water supply of 15 maf. When the River flows are at or above the long-term mean, and reservoirs are full, concentrations are expected and have been observed to be below the numeric criteria. Conversely, when flows are dramatically below the long-term mean, and reservoirs are depleted, salinities may increase above the numeric criteria.

Considerable knowledge has been gained through a wide range of research and technical studies since the Forum took this position. Procedures for reducing the volume of saline irrigation return flows have been developed. Reclamation, the NRCS and the Basin states are funding salinity control measures with irrigation districts, canal companies and individual farmers to accomplish salt loading reductions to the River system by improving off-farm and on-farm water delivery systems and water management practices. Additionally, BLM is investigating and implementing measures for reducing salt load contributions from the vast areas of public lands within the Basin managed by the agency.

7

NUMERIC CRITERIA

As discussed earlier in this Review, the USEPA promulgated a regulation that set forth a basinwide salinity control policy for the Basin. This policy required that the flow-weighted average annual salinity in the lower main stem of the River be maintained at or below the 1972 levels. Three stations: 1) below Hoover Dam; (2) below Parker Dam; and (3) at Imperial Dam are the points in the lower main stem of the River where the flow-weighted average annual salinity is measured. The basis for selecting these stations is their proximity to key diversion facilities on the lower River. Nevada diverts River main stem water from for use in the Las Vegas area. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the divert water from , impounded behind Parker Dam, for millions of water users in southern California and central Arizona, respectively. The large agricultural areas in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in California and the Yuma area in Arizona are served by diversions at Imperial Dam.

The numeric criteria for each of those stations as established in 1972 are as follows:

Below Hoover Dam 723 mg/L Below Parker Dam 747 mg/L At Imperial Dam 879 mg/L

The federal regulations provide for temporary increases above the numeric criteria levels if sufficient control measures are included in the plan of implementation. Should additional water development projects take place beyond those anticipated to occur before control measures are brought on line, temporary increases above the numeric criteria could result. However, these increases will be deemed in conformance with the standards if appropriate salinity control measures are included in the plan. During the next three years, or the period of this review, no increases above the 1972 levels are anticipated.

Since the numeric criteria were adopted in 1974, shifts in water use patterns have occurred in the Lower Basin. While agriculture still remains the predominant user, there has been a shift within this sector from growing mostly low value salt tolerant crops to growing higher value, less salt tolerant crops. Changing markets, increasing land values, escalating production costs, and competition for water supplies drives agricultural producers to higher value crops per unit of land area. Continued control of salinity levels allows the trend to plant and harvest higher value crops to continue. These higher value crops tend to be less salt tolerant overall or are particularly susceptible to some of the salt constituents such as sodium or boron. Because of this shift, the need for water conservation and efficiency within the agricultural sector continues to put an emphasis on reducing salinity. As these shifts continue, there will be more justification to remove additional salt from the water and more emphasis on further reducing the salinity levels below the numeric criteria to reduce the several hundred million dollars in annual damages.

Based on the Forum’s findings stated above, this document is the appropriate setting to review the numeric criteria and recommend any changes if necessary. Based on the current use patterns in the Lower Basin and the ongoing progress toward accomplishing all measures identified 8 in the plan of implementation as described in this Review, the Forum finds the current numeric criteria are adequate for the next three years and recommends no changes at this time.

PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION

General

A purpose of the plan of implementation is to offset the effects of water resource development and human activities in the Basin after 1972. The plan of implementation is not intended to address the salinity of the River caused by human activity prior to 1972, nor salinity caused by natural variations in river flows.

The probability of exceeding the numeric criteria in a given year was calculated by dividing the number of flow sequences that exceeded the criteria in a given year by the total number of sequences modeled. The probabilities are shown for the first year of the current Review, the first year of the next Review and the last year of the period considered by this Review. Table 2 was created by Reclamation using its River Model. This table shows the calculated probability of exceeding the numeric criteria if only salinity control measures are completed that are now in process. Out year construction of salinity control measures that might be contemplated by a plan of implementation were not included in the analysis that led to the creation of Table 2. It can be observed that the assumption of no future features being constructed does not create concern with respect to exceeding the numeric criteria in 2008 and only a small concern in 2011. However, in 2030, the model predicts a significant risk of exceeding the numeric criteria.

Table 2 Exceedance of Numeric Criteria Probability Without Additional Controls7

Station (Numeric Criteria) 2008 2011 2030

Below Hoover Dam (723 mg/L) less than 1% 6% 17%

Below Parker Dam (747 mg/L) less than 1% 6% 21%

At Imperial Dam (879 mg/L) 1% 5% 28%

The plan of implementation is designed to maintain the flow-weighted average annual salinity at or below the numeric criteria. For this Review, the plan of implementation maintains the salinity concentration of the River at or below the numeric criteria through the year 2030. Recognizing the variability in the flow of the River, there is some probability, even with a fully implemented plan of implementation, that the numeric criteria may temporarily be exceeded during

7 Paradox operation assumed terminated before 2030. 9 periods of reduced flow. However, if average hydrology occurs there will be no exceedances during the period.

The plan of implementation is composed of many actions contemplated by the federal government and many of its agencies, and by each of the seven Basin states and many of their agencies. The plan includes projects that remove the required salt tonnage. This will principally be accomplished by reducing the salt contributions to the River from existing sources and minimizing future increases in salt load caused by human activities. For this Review, the plan of implementation can be briefly summarized as follows:

1. Completion of Reclamation, USDA, and BLM salinity control measures to the extent that the measures remain viable and appropriately cost-effective.

2. Completion of activities implemented under the cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

3. Implementation of the following Forum recommended and adopted policies (the text of policies are included in Appendix B of this Review).

Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program

NPDES Permit Program for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards

Policy for Use of Brackish and/or Saline Waters for Industrial Purposes

Policy for Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Intercepted Ground Water

Policy for Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Fish Hatcheries

4. Implementation of non-point source management plans developed by the states and approved by the USEPA.

Item 1 of the list above is to be implemented by federal agencies in conjunction with state, local and private participants. The Forum participates with federal agencies in developing the measures to be implemented. The Forum also urges Congress to appropriate the funds needed for implementation and recommends legislative changes when necessary. Funding for item 2 is initiated by cost sharing on funds spent by the federal agencies. Items 3 and 4 above are primarily implemented by each of the Basin states.

10 Federal Programs

Congress enacted The Act (Public Law (P.L. 93-320) in June of 1974 with the Forum's support. Title I of The Act addresses the United States' commitment to Mexico and provided the means for the United States to comply with the provisions of Minute No. 242. Title II of The Act created a water quality program for salinity control in the United States. Primary responsibility for the federal program was given to the Secretary of the Interior, with Reclamation being instructed to investigate and build several salinity control units. The Secretary of Agriculture was instructed to support the effort within existing authorities.

The Act was amended in 1984 by P.L. 98-569 to authorize two additional units for construction by Reclamation and directed the BLM to implement a comprehensive program to minimize salt loading in the Basin. The amendments directed the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to give preference to the salinity control units with the least cost per unit of salinity reduction. The Act was also amended to establish a voluntary on-farm salinity control program to be implemented by the USDA and provided for voluntary replacement of incidental fish and wildlife values foregone on account of the on-farm measures. Many cost-effective salt-load reducing activities have been accomplished since that authorization.

Reclamation may implement a variety of effective salinity control measures, but most projects concentrate on improving the efficiency of off-farm irrigation delivery systems. The Act was amended by P.L. 104-20 to authorize the Basinwide Program. The Basinwide Program uses a competitive process that has greatly increased the federal cost effectiveness of salinity control. P.L. 106-459 increased the authorization ceiling for Reclamation’s salinity control program.

The USDA program generally concentrates on improving on-farm systems. The FAIRA of 1996 (P.L. 104-127) changed how the USDA participates in the salinity control program by creating a new conservation program which combined four conservation programs, including the USDA=s program. The FSRIA of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) reauthorized the EQIP through 2007 that significantly increased funding levels.

The Act, as amended, required the states to cost-share the salinity control based on federal funds expended by both the Basinwide Program and the EQIP. These cost sharing dollars are provided by the Basin Funds. In 2008, The Act was amended to better describe how this cost sharing is to occur and the effort was titled by the amendments as the Basin States Program. This cost sharing effort is further described in the State Cost Sharing and Cooperative Agreements section of this Review.

The goal of the BLM program is to reduce the contribution of salts to the River from BLM- administered public lands. Salt reduction is achieved by controlling both point and non-point sources of salt contributions, however, the majority of salt derived from public lands is of non-point-source origin.

NPDES permits are issued by the USEPA for New Mexico. The USEPA also issues NPDES permits for Indian tribes in the Basin. Salinity discharge requirements for these permits are reviewed and added where needed during the permit re-issuance process. 11

The plan of implementation recognizes that the Forum, participating federal agencies, and the Basin states each have specific responsibilities for furthering the Program. The Forum will continue to provide overall coordination and a continuing review of salinity changes, program effectiveness, and the need to make further program changes and improvements.

Table 3 gives a brief summary of the federal Program accomplishments to date and identifies potential future measures. It is estimated that there has been a reduction in salt loading of 1,080,100 tons per year. Once the Paradox Unit’s useful life was reached, prior to 2030, its salt loading reduction fell out and thereafter was not in the probability analyses presented herein. The plan of implementation calls for a continuation of the federal programs. On Table 3, it can be noted that with time that continued effort will reduce a total of 1,864,600 tons of salt.

12 Table 3 Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs

UNIT TONS PER YEAR REMOVED

MEASURES IN PLACE BY Reclamation (2004) Basinwide Program 250,000 Meeker Dome 48,000 Las Vegas Wash Pittman 3,800 Grand Valley 122,300 Paradox Valley 113,000 Lower Gunnison Winter Water (USBR) 41,400 Dolores 23,000 SUBTOTAL 601,500 MEASURES IN PLACE BY USDA (2007)8 Grand Valley 89,900 Price-San Rafael 41,900 Uinta Basin 137,500 Big Sandy River 56,000 Lower Gunnison 87,700 McElmo Creek 21,200 Mancos 1,600 Muddy Creek (USDA) 0 Manila 1,000 Silt 1,200 SUBTOTAL 438,000 MEASURES IN PLACE BY BLM Nonpoint Sources 9 26,000 Well-Plugging 14,600 TOTAL 1,080,100 POTENTIAL NEW MEASURES Reclamation Basinwide Program 400,000 Price San Rafael (Reclamation/USDA) 105,000 Grand Valley (USDA) 42,100 Uinta Basin (USDA) 25,500 Big Sandy River (USDA) 27,700 Lower Gunnison (USDA) 98,300 McElmo Creek (USDA) 24,800 Mancos River (USDA) 10,300 Muddy Creek (USDA) 11,700 Manila 16,300 Silt 2,800 Unidentified 20,000 New Well Plugging and Nonpoint Source (BLM) Unknown SUBTOTAL (rounded) 784,500 TOTAL(rounded) 1,864,600020

8 May include off-farm controls that were not goaled 9 BLM non-point source are estimates depicting of potential opportunities 13 States Cost Sharing and Cooperative Agreements

In 2008, The Act was modified to create, by name, a program for the required cost sharing from the Basin Funds for federal expenditures. The newly named program is called the Basin States Program. The amendments to The Act, in bill form, are provided in this Review as Appendix A. The Basin States Program will provide for how funds are to be expended with regard to the required cost sharing by the states for the federal expenditures by Reclamation and the NRCS for salinity control. This cost sharing has been occurring and is at about $10 million to $13 million each year. The Act requires that the Basin Funds provide 30% of the total funding for the Program. Before the Basin States Program can begin, Reclamation must submit a report to Congress. That report is currently being drafted but may not be submitted to Congress until 2009.

In order to take full advantage of the cost sharing opportunities provided by The Act, Reclamation has entered into cooperative agreements with the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. These agreements provide for the use of Basin Funds. These agreements allow the states to enter into contracts with other entities to achieve salinity control utilizing funds generated by the cost-share provision of The Act. Each state administers its agreement a little differently but all have the same goal of providing salinity control in the most cost-effective manner. These agreements have proven very useful as a means of supplementing the activities of the federal agencies.

Forum Policies and States’ NPDES Permits

An important component of the plan of implementation for salinity control is the Basin states' activities associated with the control of salt discharge to the River through Forum policies and the states’ NPDES permits. In 1977, the Forum adopted the Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program. This policy provides guidance for the regulation of municipal and industrial point source discharges of saline water. The Forum approved needed changes to its NPDES policy on October 30, 2002. In 1980, the Forum adopted a policy to encourage the use of brackish and/or saline waters for industrial purposes where it is environmentally sound, and economically feasible. A third policy dealing with intercepted ground water was adopted by the Forum in 1982. In 1988, the Forum adopted a fourth policy which addresses the salinity of water discharges from fish hatcheries. These policies are found in this report in Appendix B.

Each of the states has adopted the Forum policies presented in Appendix B. A listing of the NPDES permits in force within the Basin is presented in Appendix C. Some NPDES permits are issued by the USEPA for federal facilities and on Indian reservations. The Forum policies also apply to these USEPA permits and, hence, this USEPA effort is a part of the plan of implementation. The USEPA issue permits can be found in Appendix D of this report. During the period of this review, the status of implementation of the NPDES permits and the water quality management plans in each of the states is as follows:

14 State Water Quality Management Plans

Arizona

Scope

The Colorado River enters Arizona (and the Lower Basin) near Page, travels through the before turning southward at Lake Mead (Hoover Dam) and flowing to the . There are four major drainages entering the river as it passes through Arizona: 1) the which drains east-central Arizona, crosses the Navajo Reservation before emptying into the Colorado River approximately 50 miles south of the Utah border; 2) the which cuts across the northwest corner of Arizona from Utah before entering Lake Mead; 3) the Bill Williams River, formed by the Big Sandy and the Santa Maria Rivers at Alamo Lake, which empties into the Colorado River above Parker Dam, and 4) the , which drains central and southern Arizona and joins the Colorado River near Yuma, below Imperial Dam.

NPDES Permitting

Since December 2002, when Arizona received delegation of the NPDES permitting program from the USEPA, the Water Quality Division of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has administered the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program on non- Indian country lands. All major permits for municipal and industrial discharges, with direct river discharges, are written in conformance with the associated Forum policies. The agency continues to evaluate and revise other discharge permits as information becomes available.

Currently there are 14 active, individual Arizona discharge permits holders in the non-tribal portion of the River system. Of these, 12 are for industrial discharges related to mining, power plants, fueling stations and one federal fish hatchery. There are 29 permits associated with municipal water treatment and/or wastewater discharges. These facilities serve a total population of approximately 180,000 people. A specific listing of the individual permits and the status of compliance with Forum policy is contained in Appendix C.

Of the 21 federally recognized tribes in Arizona, 7 tribes have lands within the drainage of the Basin and 4 tribes currently hold a total of 24 NPDES permits. These permits are issued and administered by the USEPA Region 9 in San Francisco. Twelve permits are for community wastewater treatment facilities, ten are for domestic wastewater discharges from boarding schools, and two are for mining operations (one for coal and one for copper). There are 7 other permits issued to various non-tribal entities with facilities located on tribal lands.

Water Quality Assessments and TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads)

In general, water quality in the Arizona portion of the Basin is good to very good. There are currently only 15 stream segments in the basin that are listed in the state’s 2004 Section 303(d) report as impaired (4 – Bill Williams; 5 – Colorado River Mainstem; 6 – Little Colorado River). No waters are currently listed for salinity related impacts. The primary causes of impairment (a water body may be impaired for more than one pollutant) are sediment (9), selenium (4), pathogens (1) and 15 trace metals (4), including mercury. Complete assessment information can be found on the agency’s website at: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/assess.html

Watershed Planning

Some of these water quality issues are being addressed through locally-led watershed management efforts funded through Arizona’s 319 grant program. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of finalizing comprehensive watershed-based plans for several watersheds in the state, including the Bill Williams watershed. These plans will contain the USEPA’s required 9 elements to achieve the highest ranking for possible funding under the Clean Water Act 319 program. In addition, the plans contain implementation strategies for many of the impaired waters, as well as Best Management Practices to address existing and potential issues in the watershed.

California

NPDES Permits

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region issues the NPDES permits for navigable waters and Waste Discharge Requirements for land discharges within the River drainage portion of the state. In issuing and reissuing waste discharge requirements, the Regional Board complies with all Forum policies. In addition, the Regional Board has included in the discharge permit requirements for land discharges a prohibition against brine backwash from water softeners into evapo-percolation ponds which overlie ground waters which are in hydraulic continuity with the River system. Industrial discharges are to be confined in impervious evaporation basins.

Water Quality Management Planning

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Basin was adopted by the Regional Board in November 1993. Following public hearings, the updated plan was adopted by the Regional Board and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board in February 1994. The revised plan became effective upon approval of the Office of Administrative Law in August 1994. The salinity control component of the Water Quality Control Plan is consistent with the Forum's plan of implementation for salinity control. The Regional Board is working with local entities and the Colorado River Board of California to ensure that implementation of the water quality plan is achieved.

In March 2008, the Regional Board completed the 2007 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan. The purpose of this review is to reaffirm and/or revise water quality objectives and beneficial uses for ground and surface waters, and evaluate the adequacy of the Basin Plan for protecting water quality. Several projects that require Basin Plan amendments are underway and include TMDLs for the , New River, Alamo River, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, and the Palo Verde Outfall Drain. Recently adopted amendments include a Silt TMDL for the Drains, and a Trash TMDL for the New River. 16

Other Activities

State Water Resources Control Board Policy on the Use and Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Powerplant Cooling, Resolution No. 75-58 establishes priorities for the use of poor quality waters for cooling of inland power plants, and has been in effect since 1975. The State Water Resources Control Board has included salinity control in the River among its top priority items.

Colorado

Scope

Colorado’s portion of the Basin is comprised of six major drainages: 1) the main stem of the River from the Continental Divide to the Utah border; 2) the Basin; 3) the Yampa/White River Basin which flows to the Green River in Utah; 4) the Basin; 5) the which flows to the main stem in Utah; and 6) the San Juan River which flows into New Mexico.

NPDES Permitting

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division administers the NPDES permitting program in the Basin, with the exception that the USEPA issues permits for point source discharges on the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Reservations. This would include permits for discharges to ground water that would contribute salinity to the River system through a hydrologic connection to surface waters. Permits for industrial and municipal discharges are written in conformance with the associated Forum policies. In 2006, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission ruled that construction of oil and gas development sites and related infrastructure (e.g. roads) of one or more acres of disturbance are required to obtain stormwater permit coverage, even though the Energy Policy Act had exempted this activity from the requirement to obtain a permit at the federal level.

Currently there are more than 350 active discharge permits in the Colorado portion of the Basin. A specific listing of the individual permits and compliance status is contained in Appendix C.

Water Quality Assessments and TMDLs

The waters in Colorado’s portion of the Basin are generally of good quality. Twenty-seven stream segments in the lower portion of the system (12 - Gunnison; 8 - main stem and tributaries of the River; and 7 – White/Yampa) are included on the 2008 303d List of Impaired Waters for selenium, caused by both natural sources and irrigation of land that sits on marine shale, primarily the Mancos. Twenty-five stream segments in the mountainous portions of the Basin (10 – Gunnison; 4 – San Miguel; 3 – Dolores; 4- Blue/Snake and Eagle – 4) are listed for metals, primarily caused by the remnants of historic mining activities. No waters are currently listed for salinity related impacts. Watershed Planning

17 The Upper Basin in Colorado has several watershed planning projects in progress. The potential water quality impacts of headwater diversions to Colorado’s Eastern Slope are being examined. There is an on-going study of stream flows and their impact upon water quality in the Roaring Fork watershed and a comprehensive watershed plan is nearing completion. Each of the towns and cities in the Roaring Fork watershed also have been making improvements in their stormwater management programs, even though they are not currently required to obtain the Phase II municipal stormwater permit. The City of Aspen has recently formed a stormwater utility that will sponsor construction and maintenance of stormwater best management practices.

Development of coal bed methane continues to be a major activity in the Basin. More oil and gas development projects are obtaining a discharge permit for process water discharges under section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

Several watershed planning efforts are underway or already exist in the Basin in Colorado. Most of these are associated with the Clean Water Act Section 319 grant program requirements. New plans for the Dolores, Mancos, Uncompahgre and Lower Animas Rivers are in formative stages. These plans are designed to meet the 9 required elements for a nonpoint source watershed based plan as described by the USEPA.

The Gunnison River Basin Selenium Task Force and the Grand Valley Selenium Task Force are working on watershed plans which focus upon the need to address water quality impacts from selenium. The USGS recently completed a selenium loading analysis for the Gunnison Basin which will provide the technical basis for a series of TMDLs currently under development by the Water Quality Control Division. The task forces are targeting irrigation improvement projects to achieve significant selenium and salinity loading reductions.

Nevada

Scope

The Basin within Nevada consists of 12,376 square miles, with the major tributaries being the Virgin and Muddy Rivers and the Las Vegas Wash. All of these tributaries flow into Lake Mead and provide nearly all of the inflow to the River from Nevada.

NPDES Permitting

The USEPA has delegated the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection the authority to issue NPDES Permits. Currently there are approximately 37 active discharge permits in the Nevada portion of the Colorado River System. The largest dischargers, the City of Las Vegas and the Clark County Water Reclamation District, and the City of Henderson were issued new discharge permits in July 2001. The permits allow a flow up to 91 MGD for the City of Las Vegas, 110 MGD for the Clark County Water Reclamation District and 42.5 MGD for the City of Henderson. The qualities of the waters affected by these permits are closely monitored and all necessary programs to protect water quality standards will be implemented. Nevada continues to apply the policies adopted by the Forum.

18 Water Quality Management Planning

Area-wide water quality management planning duties and powers have been vested to certain counties. The Clark County Board of Commissioners was designated the Area-Wide Water Quality Management Planning organization within Clark County. The initial 208 Plan was adopted by the Clark County Board of Commissioners in 1988 and was approved by the USEPA.

Subsequently, in 1997, the Clark County Board of Commissioners adopted the Las Vegas Valley 208 Water Quality Management Plan Amendment. The Las Vegas Valley 208 amendment included updates to planning area boundaries, wastewater flow projections, reclaimed water demands, nonpoint source management, Las Vegas Wash Wetlands planning, integrated planning coordination, and overall water quality planning.

The main purpose of this 208 Plan Amendment is to: • Revise the 1990 208 Plan Amendment • Include effects of sustained regional growth and development • Revise stormwater permitting to a more inclusive nonpoint section • Provide water quality planning to a horizon year of 2020

The Las Vegas Valley 208 Plan Amendment was further updated in 2001 to include the Areawide Reuse Study, and the Comprehensive Adaptive Management Plan for the Las Vegas Wash.

Clark County adopted the Northeast Clark County 208 Plan in June 2000. The amendment area is located in the northeast area of the county, including the communities of Bunkerville, Logandale, Overton, Moapa, Moapa Valley, and the City of Mesquite. Two tributaries to the River are located in the area, the Muddy and Virgin Rivers. The Virgin River is currently listed on the State’s 303d list. Both rivers have aquatic endangered species and drain into Lake Mead.

In 2007, the Amendment to the Northeast Clark County 208 Plan was adopted and approved by the USEPA. The main purposes of this amendment are: 1) acknowledge a lack of wastewater management options in northeast Clark County; 2) amend the 2000 Northeast Clark County Water Quality Management Plan primarily to allow for the options of package wastewater treatment plants. The South Clark County Water Quality Management Plan was adopted in 1988 and amendments were made for Lake Las Vegas in 1988 and for Laughlin in 1988. The current Clark County area- wide 208 Plan Project will combine the 5 existing Clark County regional Water Quality Management Plans into one integrated Clark County area-wide 208 Plan. Work is in progress and is scheduled to be completed in 2008.

Local government entities within urban Clark County are also participants in the NPDES Stormwater Quality Management Committee to identify and implement measures to meet state stormwater permitting requirements. Future 208 amendments are expected to address gray water issues and shallow ground water issues, to update population projections, and to incorporate best management plans identified in the stormwater permit for the Las Vegas area entities.

19 Other Activities

A program has been developed by the Clark County Water Reclamation District, the City of Las Vegas, and the City of North Las Vegas to coordinate, investigate, and encourage the implementation of management practices resulting in reduction of wastewater salinity. The principal emphasis of this program will be directed toward salinity control to meet the requirements of the NPDES permits issued to Clark County, the City of Las Vegas, and Henderson.

New Mexico

Scope

New Mexico=s portion of the Basin above Imperial Dam is comprised of two major main stem drainages: 1) the Puerco River, which is a tributary of the Little Colorado River; 2) the San Juan River, a major tributary of the River that reenters Colorado prior to draining into on the Arizona-Utah border.

NPDES Permitting

In New Mexico, authority for issuing permits is administered by the USEPA Region VI, except for facilities located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, which are administered by Region IX. All permits for industrial and municipal discharges are written in conformance with the associated Forum policies. Currently, there are 37 active discharge permits in the New Mexico portion of the River system, of which Region VI administers 25 permits and Region IX administers 12 Navajo Reservation permits. Of these, 21 permits (20 non-Indian, 1 Navajo) are for industrial discharges and 16 permits (5 non-Indian, 11 Navajo) are associated with municipal wastewater discharges.

Water Quality Assessment and TMDLs

The New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission has adopted the framework for water quality in New Mexico, which includes the State of New Mexico Water Quality Management Plan and the New Mexico Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Both plans cover the entire state except for that portion of the Navajo Reservation lying therein. Planning within the reservation is the sole responsibility of the Navajo Tribe. Much of the Basin in New Mexico falls within the boundaries of the reservation.

The following TMDLs have been adopted by the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission and approved by the USEPA within the New Mexico portion of the Basin at this time.

• Animas River: fecal coliform, nutrients • Gallegos Canyon: selenium • LaPlata River: fecal coliform & siltation • LaPlata River: dissolved oxygen • San Juan River: fecal coliform & sedimentation/siltation

20 Watershed Planning

Work plans are developed and grant funding secured under Clean Water Act Section 319(h) for watershed associated development, riparian area restoration, certification of Section 404 permits, spill response, and treatment of abandoned mines. The work plans identify and coordinate efforts by state, federal, and local agencies, along with other groups and private citizens to reduce or prevent non-point source pollution and implement best management practices to reduce non-point source pollutants. The New Mexico Environment Department and the BLM have recently entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to implement a roads maintenance education project for oil and gas operators working within the Largo Canyon watershed. The project is intended to reduce the hydrologic impacts of roads and is jointly funded by the Section 319(h) program Basin states funds, BLM funds, and service-in-kind from road maintenance crews. State Revolving Loan Funds and other funds are authorized and available for use in funding salinity control projects. State actions in support of salinity control include: 1) inclusion of salinity control measures in the Section 208 plans; 2) dissemination of information on salinity sources and control; 3) consultation with industries on potential salinity reduction measures; 4) implementation of Forum policy through NPDES permits; 5) maintaining a continuous water quality planning program whereby new or additional salinity control measures can be addressed.

Utah

Scope

Utah’s portion of the Basin is comprised of 10 major sections: 1) the main stem of the Colorado River from the Colorado border to the Arizona Border in Lake Powell; 2) the Green River Basin from the Wyoming State Line in to the confluence with the River; 3) the Duchesne River Basin: 4) the lower Yampa and White River Basins which flow to the Green River in Utah; 5) the Price and Basins; 6) the Dirty Devil and Escalante Rivers; 7) the lower portion of the San Juan Basin which flows the main stem in Utah; 8) the ; 9) the Basin to the Arizona State Line; 10) the Virgin River Basin to the Arizona state line.

NPDES Permitting

The Utah Division of Water Quality within the Utah Department of Environmental Quality administers the NPDES permitting program in Utah. Permits for industrial and municipal discharges are written in conformance with the associated Forum policies. As of Dec 31, 2007, there are 76 active discharge permits issued in the Utah portion of the Basin. Of these, 32 are for municipal discharges and 44 are for industrial discharges. A specific listing of the individual permits and their compliance status is contained in Appendix C. By early 2006, a total of 5 discharge permits for coal mining operations in Utah were developed to offset salinity contributions from industrial sources in accordance with the Forum policy adopted as part of the 2002 Review. The salinity-offset project plans for all 5 coal mine facilities have been finalized with projects currently being implemented to offset salinity contributions in excess of the one-ton per day requirement.

21 Water Quality Assessments and TMDLs

The waters in Utah’s portion of the Basin are generally of good quality. There have been 23 stream segments listed for impacts from salinity/TDS/chlorides. These segments are generally in the lower reaches of the respective basins and are the result of a combination of natural salt loadings, as well as agricultural drainage. TMDLs have been developed to address these salinity/TDS/chloride impairments. For information about the completed studies and to view the current Utah 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, please visit www.waterquality.utah.gov/TMDL.

Watershed Planning

Utah's Watershed Management and Planning program is focused on protecting and restoring the water quality of its streams, lakes and ground water resources by employing the following key elements; Stewardship, Monitoring and Assessment, Coordination and Watershed Planning. Although projects exist in other regions, currently the Upper Basin region in Utah has no watershed planning projects in progress for water quality. The Basin Plans for the Utah State Water Plan include water quality as part of the process and these plans are updated periodically.

Wyoming

Scope

Wyoming=s portion of the Basin is comprised of 2 major main stem drainages: 1) the Little Snake River, which is a tributary of the in Colorado; 2) the Green River which empties into Flaming Gorge Reservoir on the Wyoming-Utah border.

NPDES Permits

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division administers the NPDES permitting program within the Basin in Wyoming. There are no Indian lands situated within the River drainage in Wyoming. All permits for industrial and municipal discharges are written in conformance with the associated Forum policies.

Currently there are 43 active discharge permits in the Wyoming portion of the Colorado River system. Of these, 19 are for industrial discharges related to coal mines, power plants or oil and gas production facilities. The largest discharge is from the City of Rock Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant which discharges approximately 8.86 tons/day of salt into Bitter Creek, a tributary of the Green River near Rock Springs. There are 14 permits associated with municipal wastewater discharges. These facilities serve a total population of approximately 50,000 people. A specific listing of the individual permits and compliance status is contained in Appendix C.

Water Quality Assessments and TMDLs

In general, water quality in the Wyoming portion of the Basin is good to very good. There are currently only 12 streams and rivers identified as either impaired or threatened in the state’s 2008 Section 303(d) list (10 pollutant/segment combinations on 6 streams/rivers in the Green River Basin, 22 9 pollutant/segment combinations on 6 streams in the Little Snake River Basin). No waters are currently listed for salinity related impacts. Complete assessment information can be found at: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/index.asp.

Watershed Planning

Most of the water quality issues mentioned above are currently being addressed through locally-led implementation of watershed management plans funded through Wyoming=s Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Program and other state and federal cost-share programs. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has scheduled development of TMDLs to begin on 6 of the listed streams and rivers (9 pollutant/segment combinations) in 2008 and 2009. In addition, the Wyoming Water Development Commission and Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, with assistance from the University of Wyoming’s Water Resources Data System, are engaged in a statewide water planning process and are currently preparing a revised river basin water plan for the Green and Little Snake drainages. The February 2001 water planning report presented current and proposed (estimated) future uses of water in Wyoming=s Green River and Little Snake Basins. This information is being updated during the current effort, along with other useful information, including irrigated lands delineation, hydrologic modeling of major streams, current use determinations for all water use categories, future use projections, water development opportunities identification, and related activities. Detailed information can be accessed at: http://waterplan.state.wy.us.

Effect of the Plan of Implementation

At the request of the Forum, Reclamation made an additional run of its river model which calculated the probability of exceeding the numeric criteria if the plan of implementation as outlined in this Review were to be constructed. Table 4 provides the results of that model run. When Table 2 is compared with Table 4, it can be noted that the probability of exceeding the numeric criteria is greatly reduced by the implementation of the plan. For example, at Hoover Dam in 2030 the probability of exceeding the numeric criteria in 2030 is 17% without the implementation of the plan. With the plan being implemented, the probability in 2030 is dropped to 2%.

Table 410 Exceedance of Numeric Criteria Probability With Plan of Implementation

Station (Numeric Criteria) 2008 2011 2030

Below Hoover Dam (723 mg/L) less than 1% 3% 2%

Below Parker Dam (747 mg/L) less than 1% 4% 1%

At Imperial Dam (879 mg/L) 1% 4% 3%

10 Paradox operation assumed terminated before 2030. 23 CONCLUSION AND ADOPTION OF THE STANDARDS

The Forum adopted this draft Review. The Forum and the states remain committed to continued improvement of the water quality of the River. The federal agencies are a critical part of the Program. It is expected that by their involvement in the preparation of this Review, those federal agencies will support the plan of implementation and its programs.

The Standards consist of two components, the numeric criteria and the plan of implementation. No change has been made in the numeric criteria since their adoption in 1975 by the Basin states and approval by the USEPA. After having conducted this Review, the Forum has again found the numeric criteria to be appropriate and recommends no changes in these criteria. The Forum also finds that the updated plan of implementation is adequate to keep the salinity concentration of the River at or below the numeric criteria through 2030.

As water development occurs throughout the Basin, salinity concentrations and the associated economic damages will increase. An aggressive salinity control program is needed to reduce these damages. The Program, while continuing to maintain salinity concentrations at or below the numeric criteria, will focus on the opportunities to further reduce future economic damages. The Forum will continue to advance an aggressive program over the next decade to continue to control as much salt loading as economically justifiable.

The Program is truly a unique program and it cannot be successful without the cooperation of a multitude of agencies and governments involved at the local, state and federal levels. First, the program is reliant upon the cooperation of land owners in implementing important and cost-effective salinity control measures. Secondly, the program is dependent on a multitude of agreements among the seven Basin states which have always been accomplished by consensus. Lastly, the program depends upon the cooperation of a number of federal agencies for its success. In addition to the three federal implementing agencies, there are other federal agencies which are involved in the Program and cooperation and coordination with these agencies is also essential. Three agencies are notable; the USFWS, the USGS and the USEPA.

In May of 2008, the Forum adopted a draft 2008 Review. During the summer of 2008 comments on the report were solicited. Each state sent out notice of the report and the report was posted on the Forum’s website. No comments were received requesting modification of the draft 2008 Review. At a Forum meeting held in , California, the Forum approved the 2008 Review document.

Each of the seven Basin states will now include the Review as a part of its own water quality standards and, through procedures established by each state, consider the Review for adoption and submittal to the appropriate regional office of the USEPA for approval. Because the Basin contains portions of three USEPA regions, the States of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming will make submittals to the USEPA Region VIII in Denver, Colorado; New Mexico to the USEPA Region VI in Dallas, Texas; and Nevada, Arizona and California to the USEPA Region IX in San Francisco, California. It is anticipated that the USEPA, by approval of the states= submittals, will fully support this salinity control effort. 24

APPENDIX A

2008 Amendments to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act

The appendix is Sec. 2806 – Use of Funds in Basin Funds for Salinity Control Activities Upstream of Imperial Dam

as found in the

Conference Report of the House of Representatives concerning the

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) H.R. 2419 (P.L. 110-246) June 18, 2008

APPENDIX B

Forum Policies

POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COLORADO RIVER SALINITY STANDARDS THROUGH THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM

Adopted by The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

February 28, 1977 Revised October 30, 2002

In November 1976, the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrators notified each of the seven Colorado River Basin states of the approval of the water quality standards for salinity for the Colorado River System as contained in the document entitled "Proposed Water Quality Standards for Salinity Including Numeric Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System, June 1975, and the supplement dated August 25, 1975. The salinity standards including numeric criteria and a plan of implementation provide for a flow weighted average annual numeric criteria for three stations in the lower main stem of the Colorado River: below Hoover Dam, below Parker Dam, and at Imperial Dam.

In 1977, the states of the Colorado River Basin adopted the "Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards through the NPDES Permit Program." The plan of implementation is comprised of a number of Federal and non-Federal projects and measures to maintain the flow- weighted average annual salinity in the Lower Colorado River at or below numeric criteria at the three stations as the Upper and Lower Basin states continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters. One of the components of the Plan consists of the placing of effluent limitations, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, on industrial and municipal discharges.

NPDES Policy for Municipal and Industrial Discharges of Salinity in the Colorado River

The purpose of this policy is to provide more detailed guidance in the application of salinity standards developed pursuant to Section 303 and through the NPDES permitting authority in the regulation of municipal and industrial sources. (See Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.) The objective of the policy, as provided in Sections I.A. and I.B., is to achieve "no salt return" whenever practicable for industrial discharges and an incremental increase in salinity over the supply water for municipal discharges. This policy is applicable to discharges that would have an impact, either direct or indirect on the lower main stem of the Colorado River System. The lower main stem is defined as that portion of the River from Hoover Dam to Imperial Dam.

In October, 2002, the Forum substantially amended the NPDES policies relating to industrial discharges but made no changes to the procedures for municipal discharges. In the printing of the 2002 Review, however, the section relating to municipal discharges and an additional appendix entitled “Guidance on New Construction Determination” were inadvertently omitted. Both errors have been corrected in this printing and the Forum reaffirms the validity of all of the policies as they appear in this document.

B-1 NPDES Policies Separately Adopted by the Forum

The Forum developed a separate and specific policy for the use of brackish and/or saline waters for industrial purposes on September 11, 1980. The Forum addressed the issue of intercepted ground water and adopted a specific policy dealing with that type of discharge on October 20, 1982. On October 28, 1988, the Forum adopted a specific policy addressing the water use and discharge associated with fish hatcheries. Each of these separately adopted policies is attached hereto.

NPDES Policies for Specified Industrial Discharges – 2002 Amendments

On October 30, 2002, the Forum amended this policy for implementation of Colorado River salinity standards through the NPDES permit program in order to address the following three additional types of industrial discharges: (1) water that has been used for once-through noncontact cooling water purposes; (2) new industrial sources that have operations and associated discharges at multiple locations; and (3) "fresh water industrial discharges" where the discharged water does not cause or contribute to exceedances of the salinity standards for the Colorado River System. This policy was also amended to encourage new industrial sources to conduct or finance one or more salinity-offset projects in cases where the permittee has demonstrated that it is not practicable to prevent the discharge of all salt from proposed new construction.

Discharges Of Once-Through Noncontact Cooling Water

Section I.C. of this policy has been added to address discharges of water that has been used for once-through noncontact cooling water purposes. The policy for such discharges shall be to permit these uses based upon a finding that the returned water does not contribute to the loading or the concentration of salts in the waters of the receiving stream beyond a de minimis amount. A de minimis amount is considered, for purposes of this policy, as an average annual increase of not more than 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in total dissolved solids measured at the discharge point or outfall prior to any mixing with the receiving stream in comparison to the total dissolved solids concentration measured at the intake monitoring point of the cooling process or facility. This policy is not intended to supersede any other water quality standard that applies to the receiving stream, including but not limited to narrative standards promulgated to prohibit impairment of designated uses of the stream. It is the intent of the Forum to permit the return of once-through noncontact cooling water only to the same stream from which the water was diverted. Noncontact cooling water is distinguished from blowdown water, and this policy specifically excludes blowdown or any commingling of once-through noncontact cooling water with another waste stream prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Sections I.A. and I.B. of this policy govern discharges of blowdown or commingled water.

New Industrial Sources with Operations and Discharges at Multiple Locations under Common or Affiliated Ownership or Management

Recently there has been a proliferation of new industrial sources that have operations and associated discharges at multiple locations. An example is the recent growth in the development of energy fuel and mineral resources that has occurred in the Upper Colorado River Basin. This

B-2 type of industrial development may involve the drilling of relatively closely spaced wells into one or more geological formations for the purpose of extracting oil, gas or minerals in solution. Large-scale ground water remediation efforts involving multiple pump and treat systems operating for longer than one year may share similar characteristics. With such energy and mineral development and ground water remediation efforts there is the possibility of a single major industrial operation being comprised of numerous individual point source discharges under common or affiliated ownership or management that produce significant quantities of water as a waste product or byproduct over a long period. Given the large areal scope of these types of major industrial sources and the often elevated concentrations of salinity in their produced water, the total amount of salt loading that they could generate may be very large in comparison to the Forum's past and present salt removal projects. Relatively small quantities of this produced water could generate one ton per day in discharges to surface waters. Since salinity is a conservative water quality constituent, such discharges of produced water, if uncontrolled, could have an adverse effect on achieving the adopted numeric salinity standards for the Colorado River System.

These kinds of major industrial sources strain the conventional interpretation of the industrial source waiver for new construction set forth in Section I.A.1.a. of this policy, which authorizes a discharge of salinity from a single point source of up to one ton per day in certain circumstances. The Forum adopted this provision in 1977, well before most of the new major industrial sources that have operations and discharges at multiple locations began to appear in the Colorado River Basin. A new category of industrial sources is, therefore, warranted. NPDES permit requirements for New Industrial Sources with Operations and Discharges at Multiple Locations under Common or Affiliated Ownership or Management are set forth in Section I.D. of this policy. These new requirements are intended to apply to new industrial sources with operations that commence discharging after October 30, 2002.

For purposes of interpreting this policy, "common or affiliated ownership or management" involves the authority to manage, direct, superintend, restrict, regulate, govern, administer, or oversee, or to otherwise exercise a restraining or directing influence over activities at one or more locations that result in a discharge of salinity into the Colorado River System. Common or affiliated ownership or management may be through the ownership of voting securities or may be indicated where individual sources are related through one or more joint ventures, contractual relationships, landlord/tenant or lessor/lessee arrangements. Other factors that indicate two or more discharging facilities are under common or affiliated ownership or management include: sharing corporate executive officers, pollution control equipment and responsibilities, common workforces, administrative functions, and/or payroll activities among operational facilities at different locations.

Fresh Water Industrial Discharges

Sections I.A. and I.B. of this policy have been amended to allow the permitting authority to authorize "fresh water industrial discharges" where the discharged water does not cause or contribute to exceedances of the adopted numeric salinity standards for the Colorado River System. Different end-of-pipe concentrations of salinity as shown in Table 1 of the policy, are

B-3 appropriate for discharges to tributaries depending upon their location within the Basin. The concept of "benchmark concentrations" has been developed in order to address this need for different end-of-pipe concentrations. These benchmark concentrations are not to be interpreted as water quality standards. Rather, they are intended to serve solely for the establishment of effluent limits for implementing the waiver for "fresh water discharges." The allowance for freshwater discharges is intended to preserve flows from discharges in the Basin, which do not cause significant degradation of existing ambient quality with respect to salinity. Operations or individual discharges that qualify for the freshwater waiver shall not be subject to any further limitation on salt loading under this policy.

Salinity-Offset Projects

This policy has been amended to allow the permitting authority to authorize industrial sources of salinity to conduct or finance one or more salinity-offset projects when the permittee has determined that it is not practicable: (i) to prevent the discharge of all salt from proposed new construction; (ii) to reduce the salt loading to the Colorado River to less than one ton per day or 366 tons per year; or (iii) the proposed discharge is of insufficient quality in terms of TDS concentrations that it could be considered "fresh water" as defined below. Presently, the permitting authority can consider the costs and availability of implementing off-site salinity control measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of the permitted salt load. It is not intended that the applicant be required to develop or design an off-site salinity control project or establish a salt bank, but rather to assess the costs of conducting or buying into such projects where they are available. In the future the Forum or another entity may create a trading/banking institution to facilitate the implementation of a salinity-offset program, basin-wide. This would allow industrial sources to conduct or finance the most cost effective project available at the time an offset project is needed regardless of the project's location in the Basin.

B-4 NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COLORADO RIVER SALINITY STANDARDS

I. Industrial Sources

The Salinity Standards state that "The objective for discharges shall be a no-salt return policy whenever practicable." This is the policy that shall be followed in issuing NPDES discharge permits for all new industrial sources, and upon the reissuance of permits for all existing industrial sources, except as provided herein. The following addresses those cases where "no discharge of salt@ may be deemed not to be practicable.

A. New Construction

1. "New construction@ is defined as any facility from which a discharge may occur, the construction of which is commenced after October 18, 1975. (Date of submittal of water quality standards as required by 40 CFR 120, December 11, 1974.) Attachment 1 provides guidance on new construction determination. "A new industrial source with operations and discharging facilities at multiple locations under common or affiliated ownership or management@ shall be defined for purposes of NPDES permitting, as an industrial source that commenced construction on a pilot, development or production scale on or after October 30, 2002.

a. The permitting authority may permit the discharge of salt upon a satisfactory demonstration by the permittee that:

i. It is not practicable to prevent the discharge of all salt from the new construction or,

ii. In cases where the salt loading to the Colorado River from the new construction is less than one ton per day or 366 tons per year, or

iii. The proposed discharge from the new construction is of sufficient quality in terms of TDS concentrations that it can be considered "fresh water" that would have no adverse effect on achieving the adopted numeric standards for the Colorado River System. The permitting authority may consider a discharge to be fresh water if the maximum TDS concentration is: (i) 500 mg/L for discharges into the Colorado River and its tributaries upstream of , Arizona; or, (ii) 90% of the applicable in-stream salinity standard at the appropriate benchmark monitoring station for discharges into the Colorado River downstream of Lees Ferry as shown in Table 1, below

B-5 Table 1

Benchmark Applicable Freshwater Monitoring Criteria Discharge (mg/L) Station

1 Colorado River at N/A 500 Lees Ferry, Arizona

2 Colorado River 723 650 below Hoover Dam

3 Colorado River 747 675 below Parker Dam

4 Colorado River at 879 790 Imperial Dam

b. Unless exempted under Sections I.A.1.a.ii. or iii., above, the demonstration by the applicant must include information on the following factors relating to the potential discharge:

(i) Description of the proposed new construction.

(ii) Description of the quantity and salinity of the water supply.

(iii) Description of water rights, including diversions and consumptive use quantities.

(iv) Alternative plans that could reduce or eliminate salt discharge. Alternative plans shall include:

(A) Description of alternative water supplies, including provisions for water reuse, if any;

(B) Description of quantity and quality of proposed discharge;

(C) Description of how salts removed from discharges shall be disposed of to prevent such salts from entering surface waters or groundwater aquifers;

(D) Costs of alternative plans in dollars per ton of salt removed; and

B-6 (E) Unless the permitting authority has previously determined through prior permitting or permit renewal actions that it is not practicable to prevent the discharge of all salt from the new construction in accordance with Section I.A.1.a.i., the applicant must include information on project options that would offset all or part of the salt loading to the Colorado River associated with the proposed discharge or that would contribute to state or interstate salinity control projects or salt banking programs.

(v) A statement as to the one plan among the alternatives for reduction of salt discharge that is recommended by the applicant and also information as to which of the other evaluated alternatives are economically infeasible.

(vi) Such other information pertinent to demonstration of non- practicability as the permitting authority may deem necessary. c. In determining what permit conditions shall be required under I.A.1.a.i., above, the permit issuing authority shall consider, but not be limited to the following:

(i) The practicability of achieving no-discharge of salt from the new construction.

(ii) Where "no discharge" is determined not to be practicable:

(A) The impact of the total proposed salt discharge of each alternative on the lower main stem in terms of both tons per year and concentration. (B) Costs per ton of salt removed from the discharge for each plan alternative.

(C) Capability of minimizing salinity discharge.

(D) If applicable under I.A.1.b.(iv)(E), costs and practicability of offsetting all or part of the salt load by the implementation of salt removal or salinity control projects elsewhere in the Colorado River Basin. The permittee shall evaluate the practicability of offsetting all or part of the salt load by comparing such factors as the cost per ton of salt removal for projects undertaken by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum and the costs in damages associated with increases in salinity concentration against the permittee's cost in conducting or buying into such projects where they are available.

(iii) With regard to subparagraphs, (b) and (c) above, the permit issuing authority shall consider the compatibility of state water laws with either

B-7 the complete elimination of a salt discharge or any plan for minimizing a salt discharge.

B. Existing Facilities or any discharging facility, the construction of which was commenced before October 18, 1975

1. The permitting authority may permit the discharge of salt upon a satisfactory demonstration by the permittee that it is not practicable to prevent the discharge of all salt from an existing facility.

2. The demonstration by the applicant must include, in addition to that required under Section I.A.1.b the following factors relating to the potential discharge:

a. Existing tonnage of salt discharged and volume of effluent.

b. Cost of modifying existing industrial plant to provide for no salt discharge.

c. Cost of salt minimization.

3. In determining what permit conditions shall be required, the permit issuing authority shall consider the items presented under I.A.1.c.(ii), and in addition; the annual costs of plant modification in terms of dollars per ton of salt removed for:

a. No salt return.

b. Minimizing salt return.

4. The no-salt discharge requirement may be waived in those cases where:

a. The discharge of salt is less than one ton per day or 366 tons per year; or

b. The permitting authority determines that a discharge qualifies for a "fresh water waiver" irrespective of the total daily or annual salt load. The maximum TDS concentration considered to be fresh water is 500 mg/L for discharges into the Colorado River and its tributaries upstream of Lees Ferry, Arizona. For discharges into the Colorado River downstream of Lees Ferry the maximum TDS concentration considered to be afresh water shall be 90% of the applicable in-stream standard at the appropriate benchmark monitoring station shown in Table 1, above.

C. Discharge of Once-Through Noncontact Cooling Water

1. Definitions:

B-8 a. The terms "noncontact cooling water" and "blowdown@ are defined as per 40CFR 401.11 (m) and (n).

b. "Noncontact cooling water" means water used for cooling that does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product or finished product.

c. "Blowdown" means the minimum discharge of recirculating water for the purpose of discharging materials contained in the water, the further buildup of which would cause concentration in amounts exceeding limits established by best engineering practice.

d. "Salinity" shall mean total dissolved solids as the sum of constituents.

2. Permits shall be authorized for discharges of water that has been used for once-through noncontact cooling purposes based upon a finding that the returned water does not contribute to the loading of salts or the concentration of salts in the waters of the receiving stream in excess of a de minimis amount.

3. This policy shall not supplant nor supersede any other water quality standard of the receiving stream adopted pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act, including but not limited to impairment of designated uses of the stream as established by the governing water quality authority having jurisdiction over the waters of the receiving stream.

4. Noncontact cooling water shall be distinguished from blowdown, and Section 1.C. of this policy specifically excludes blowdown or any commingling of once-through noncontact cooling water with another waste stream prior to discharge to the receiving stream. Sections I.A. and I.B of this policy shall in all cases govern discharge of blowdown or commingled water.

5. Once-through noncontact cooling water shall be permitted to return only to the same stream from which the water was diverted.

6. Because the increase in temperature of the cooling water will result in some evaporation, a de minimis increase in the concentration of dissolved salts in the receiving water may occur. An annual average increase in total dissolved solids of not more than 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) measured at the intake monitoring point, as defined below, of the cooling process or facility, subtracted from the effluent total dissolved solids immediately upstream of the discharge point to the receiving stream, shall be considered de minimis. 7. At the time of NPDES discharge permit issuance or reissuance, the permitting authority may permit a discharge in excess of the 25 mg/L increase based upon a satisfactory demonstration by the permittee pursuant to Section 1.A.1.a.

8. Once-through demonstration data requirements:

B-9

a. Description of the facility and the cooling process component of the facility.

b. Description of the quantity, salinity concentration and salt load of intake water sources.

c. Description of the discharge, covering location, receiving waters, quantity of salt load and salinity concentration of both the receiving waters and the discharge.

d. Alternative plans for minimizing salt discharge from the facility which shall include:

(i) Description of alternative means to attain no discharge of salt.

(ii) Cost of alternative plans in dollars per ton of salt removed from discharge.

(iii) Such other information pertinent to demonstration of non- practicability as the permitting authority may deem necessary.

9. If, in the opinion of the permitting authority, the database for the salinity characteristics of the water source and the discharge is inadequate, the permit will require that the permittee monitor the water supply and the discharge for salinity. Such monitoring program shall be completed in two years and the permittee shall then present the once-through demonstration data as specified above.

10. All new and reissued NPDES permits for once-through noncontact cooling water discharges shall require at a minimum semiannual monitoring of the salinity of the intake water supply and the effluent, as provided below.

a. The intake monitoring point shall be the point immediately before the point of use of the water.

b. The effluent monitoring point shall be prior to the discharge point at the receiving stream or prior to commingling with another waste stream or discharge source.

c. Discrete or composite samples may be required at the discretion of the permitting authority, depending on the relative uniformity of the salinity of the water supply.

d. Analysis for salinity may be either total dissolved solids or electrical conductivity where a satisfactory correlation with total dissolved solids has been established. The correlation shall be based on a minimum of five different samples.

D. Discharges of Salinity from a New Industrial Source with Operations and Discharging Facilities at Multiple Locations

B-10 1. The objective for discharges to surface waters from a new industrial source with operations and discharging facilities at multiple locations shall be to assure that such operations will have no adverse effect on achieving the adopted numeric salinity standards for the Colorado River System.

2. NPDES permit requirements for a new industrial source with operations and discharging facilities at multiple locations shall be defined, for purposes of establishing effluent limitations for salinity, as a single industrial source if these facilities meet the criteria:

a. The discharging facilities are interrelated or integrated in any way including being engaged in a primary activity or the production of a principle product; and

b. The discharging facilities are located on contiguous or adjacent properties or are within a single production area e.g. geologic basin, geohydrologic basin, coal or gas field or 8 digit hydrologic unit watershed area; and

c. The discharging facilities are owned or operated by the same person or by persons under common or affiliated ownership or management.

3. The permitting authority may permit the discharge of salt from a new industrial source with operations and discharging facilities at multiple locations if one or more of the following requirements are met:

a. The permittee has demonstrated that it is not practicable to prevent the discharge of all salt from the industrial source. This demonstration by the applicant must include detailed information on the factors set forth in Section I.A.1.b of the Policy for implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards through the NPDES permit program; with particular emphasis on an assessment of salinity off-set options that would contribute to state or interstate salinity control projects or salt banking programs and offset all or part of the salt loading to the Colorado River associated with the proposed discharge.

b. In determining what permit conditions shall be required under I.A.1.a.i., above, the permit issuing authority shall consider the requirement for an offset project to be feasible if the cost per ton of salt removal in the offset project options ( i.e. the permittee's cost in conducting or buying into such projects where they are available) is less than or equal to the cost per ton of salt removal for projects undertaken by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum or less than the cost per ton in damages caused by salinity that would otherwise be cumulatively discharged from the outfalls at the various locations with operations controlled by the industrial source; or

c. The pemittee has demonstrated that one or more of the proposed discharges is of sufficient quality in terms of TDS concentrations to qualify for a "fresh water waiver" from the policy of "no salt return, whenever practical.@ An individual

B-11 discharge that can qualify for a fresh water waiver shall be considered to have no adverse effect on achieving the adopted numeric salinity standards for the Colorado River System.

4. For the purpose of determining whether a freshwater waiver can be granted, the quality of water discharged from the new industrial source with operations and discharging facilities at multiple locations, determined as the flow weighted average of salinity measurements at all outfall points, must meet the applicable benchmark concentration in accordance with Section I.A.1.a.iii., as set forth above.

5. Very small-scale pilot activities, involving 5 or fewer outfalls, that are sited in areas not previously developed or placed into production by a new industrial source operations and discharges at multiple locations under common or affiliated ownership or management, may be permitted in cases where the discharge of salt from each outfall is less than one ton per day or 366 tons per year. However, no later than the date of the first permit renewal after the pilot activities have become part of a larger industrial development or production scale effort, all discharging facilities shall be addressed for permitting purposes as a single industrial source with operations and discharges at multiple locations under common or affiliated ownership or management.

6. The public notice for NPDES permits authorizing discharges from operations at multiple locations with associated outfalls shall be provided promptly and in the most efficient manner to all member states in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum in relation to this policy.

II. Municipal Discharges

The basic policy is that a reasonable increase in salinity shall be established for municipal discharges to any portion of the Colorado River stream system that has an impact on the lower main stem. The incremental increase in salinity shall be 400 mg/L or less, which is considered to be a reasonable incremental increase above the flow weighted average salinity of the intake water supply.

A. The permitting authority may permit a discharge in excess of the 400 mg/L incremental increase at the time of issuance or reissuance of a NPDES discharge permit, upon satisfactory demonstration by the permittee that it is not practicable to attain the 400 mg/L limit.

B. Demonstration by the applicant must include information on the following factors relating to the potential discharge:

1. Description of the municipal entity and facilities.

2. Description of the quantity and salinity of intake water sources.

B-12 3. Description of significant salt sources of the municipal wastewater collection system, and identification of entities responsible for each source, if available.

4. Description of water rights, including diversions and consumptive use quantities.

5. Description of the wastewater discharge, covering location, receiving waters, quantity, salt load, and salinity.

6. Alternative plans for minimizing salt contribution from the municipal discharge. Alternative plans should include:

a. Description of system salt sources and alternative means of control.

b. Cost of alternative plans in dollars per ton, of salt removed from discharge.

7. Such other information pertinent to demonstration of non-practicability as the permitting authority may deem necessary.

C. In determining what permit conditions shall be required, the permit issuing authority shall consider the following criteria including, but not limited to:

1. The practicability of achieving the 400 mg/L incremental increase.

2. Where the 400 mg/L incremental increase is not determined to be practicable:

a. The impact of the proposed salt input of each alternative on the lower main stem in terms of tons per year and concentration.

b. Costs per ton of salt removed from discharge of each alternative plan.

c. Capability of minimizing the salt discharge.

D. If, in the opinion of the permitting authority, the data base for the municipal waste discharger is inadequate, the permit will contain the requirement that the municipal waste discharger monitor the water supply and the wastewater discharge for salinity. Such monitoring program shall be completed within 2 years and the discharger shall then present the information as specified above.

E. Requirements for establishing incremental increases may be waived in those cases where the incremental salt load reaching the main stem of the Colorado River is less than one ton per day or 366 tons per year. Evaluation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

B-13 F. All new and reissued NPDES permits for all municipalities shall require monitoring of the salinity of the intake water supply and the wastewater treatment plant effluent in accordance with the following guidelines:

Treatment Plant Monitoring Type of Design Capacity Frequency Sample <1.0 MGD* Quarterly Discrete 1.0 - 5.0 MGD Monthly Composite >5.0 - 50.0 MGD Weekly Composite 50.0 MGD Daily Composite

1. Analysis for salinity may be either as total dissolved solids (TDS) or be electrical conductivity where a satisfactory correlation with TDS has been established. The correlation should be based on a minimum of five different samples.

2. Monitoring of the intake water supply may be at a reduced frequency where the salinity of the water supply is relatively uniform.

B-14 Attachment 1

Guidance on New Construction Determination

For purposes of determining a new construction, a source should be considered new if by October 18, 1975, there has not been:

I. Significant site preparation work such as major clearing or excavation; and/or

II. Placement, assembly or installation of unique facilities or equipment at the premises where such facilities or equipment will be used; and/or

III. Any contractual obligation to purchase unique facilities or equipment. Facilities and equipment shall include only the major items listed below, provided that the value of such items represents a substantial commitment to construct the facility:

A. structures; or B. structural materials; or C. machinery; or D. process equipment; or E. construction equipment.

IV. Contractual obligation with a firm to design, engineer, and erect a completed facility (i.e., a turnkey plant).

B-15

POLICY FOR USE OF BRACKISH AND/OR SALINE WATERS FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES

Adopted by The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

September 11, 1980

The states of the Colorado River Basin, the federal Executive Department, and the Congress have all adopted as a policy that the salinity in the lower main stem of the Colorado River shall be maintained at or below the flow-weighted average values found during 1972, while the Basin states continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters. In order to achieve this policy, all steps which are practical and within the framework of the administration of states’ water rights must be taken to reduce the salt load of the river. One such step was the adoption in 1975 by the Forum of a policy regarding effluent limitations for industrial discharges with the objective of Ano-salt return@ wherever practicable. Another step was the Forum’s adoption in 1977 of the APolicy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards through the NPDES Permit Program.@ These policies are part of the basinwide plan of implementation for salinity control which has been adopted by the seven Basin states.

The Forum finds that the objective of maintaining 1972 salinity levels would be served by the exercise of all feasible measures including, wherever practicable, the use of brackish and/or saline waters for industrial purposes.

The summary and page 32 of the Forum’s 1978 Revision of the Water Quality Standards for Salinity state: AThe plan also contemplates the use of saline water for industrial purposes whenever practicable,...@ In order to implement this concept and thereby further extend the Forum’s basic salinity policies, the Colorado River Basin states support the Water and Power Resources Service (WPRS) appraisal study of saline water collection, pretreatment and potential industrial use.

The Colorado River Basin contains large energy resources which are in the early stages of development. The WPRS study should investigate the technical and financial feasibility of serving a significant portion of the water requirements of the energy industry and any other industries by the use of Basin brackish and/or saline waters. The Forum recommends that:

I. The Colorado River Basin states, working with federal agencies, identify, locate and quantify such brackish and/or saline water sources.

II. Information on the availability of these waters be made available to all potential users.

III. Each state encourage and promote the use of such brackish and/or saline waters, except where it would not be environmentally sound or economically feasible, or would significantly increase

B-16 consumptive use of Colorado River System water in the state above that which would otherwise occur.

IV. The WPRS, with the assistance of the states, encourages and promotes the use of brackish return flows from federal irrigation projects in lieu of fresh water sources, except where it would not be environmentally sound or economically feasible, or would significantly increase consumptive use of Colorado River System water.

V. The WPRS considers a federal contribution to the costs of industrial use of brackish and/or saline water, where cost-effective, as a joint private-government salinity control measure. Such activities shall not delay the implementation of the salinity control projects identified in Title II of P.L. 93-320.

B-17 POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COLORADO RIVER SALINITY STANDARDS THROUGH THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FOR INTERCEPTED GROUND WATER

Adopted by The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

October 20, 1982

The States of the Colorado River Basin in 1977 agreed to the APolicy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards through the NPDES Permit Program@ with the objective for industrial discharge being Ano-salt return@ whenever practicable. That policy required the submittal of information by the applicant on alternatives, water rights, quantity, quality, and costs to eliminate or minimize the salt discharge. The information is for use by the NPDES permit-issuing agency in evaluating the practicability of achieving Ano-salt@ discharge.

There are mines and wells in the Basin which discharge intercepted ground waters. The factors involved in those situations differ somewhat from those encountered in other industrial discharges. Continued development will undoubtedly result in additional instances in which permit conditions must deal with intercepted ground water.

The discharge of 1intercepted ground water needs to be evaluated in a manner consistent with the overall objective of Ano-salt return@ whenever practical. The following provides more detailed guidance for those situations where ground waters are intercepted with resultant changes in ground-water flow regime.

I. The Ano-salt@ discharge requirement may be waived at the option of the permitting authority in those cases where the discharged salt load reaching the main stem of the Colorado River is less than one ton per day or 366 tons per year. Evaluation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

II. Consideration should be given to the possibility that the ground water, if not intercepted, normally would reach the Colorado River System in a reasonable time frame. An industry desiring such consideration must provide detailed information including a description of the topography, geology, and hydrology. Such information must include direction and rate of ground-water flow; chemical quality and quantity of ground water; and the location, quality, and quantity of surface streams and springs that might be affected. If the information adequately demonstrates that the ground water to be intercepted normally would reach the river system in a reasonable time frame and would contain approximately the same or greater salt load than if intercepted, and if no significant localized problems would be created, then the permitting agency may waive the Ano-salt@ discharge requirement.

1 The term Aintercepted ground water@ means all ground water encountered during mining or other industrial operations.

B-18 III. In those situations where the discharge does not meet the criteria in I or II above, the applicant will be required to submit the following information for consideration:

A. Description of the topography, geology, and hydrology. Such information must include the location of the development, direction and rate of ground-water flow, chemical quality and quantity of ground water, and relevant data on surface streams and springs that are or might be affected. This information should be provided for the conditions with and without the project.

B. Alternative plans that could substantially reduce or eliminate salt discharge. Alternative plans must include:

1. Description of water rights, including beneficial uses, diversions, and consumptive use quantities.

2. Description of alternative water supplies, including provisions for water reuse, if any.

3. Description of quantity and quality of proposed discharge.

4. Description of how salts removed from discharges shall be disposed of to prevent their entering surface waters or ground-water aquifers.

5. Technical feasibility of the alternatives.

6. Total construction, operation, and maintenance costs; and costs in dollars per ton of salt removed from the discharge.

7. Closure plans to ensure termination of any proposed discharge at the end of the economic life of the project.

8. A statement as to the one alternative plan for reduction of salt discharge that the applicant recommends be adopted, including an evaluation of the technical, economic, and legal Practicability of achieving no discharge of salt.

9. Such information as the permitting authority may deem necessary.

IV. In determining whether a Ano-salt@ discharge is Practicable, the Permit-issuing authority shall consider, but not be limited to, the water rights and the technical, economic, and legal practicability of achieving no discharge of salt.

V. Where Ano-salt@ discharge is determined not to be Practicable the permitting authority shall, in determining permit conditions, consider:

B-19 A. The impact of the total proposed salt discharge of each alternative on the lower main stem in terms of both tons per year and concentration.

B. Costs per ton of salt removed from the discharge for each plan alternative.

C. The compatibility of state water laws with each alternative.

D. Capability of minimizing salinity discharge.

E. The localized impact of the discharge.

F. Minimization of salt discharges and the preservation of fresh water by using intercepted ground water for industrial processes, dust control, etc. whenever it is economically feasible and environmentally sound.

B-20 POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COLORADO RIVER SALINITY STANDARDS THROUGH THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FOR FISH HATCHERIES

Adopted by The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

October 28, 1988

The states of the Colorado River Basin in 1977 adopted the APolicy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards through the NPDES Permit Program.@ The objective was for Ano-salt return@ whenever practicable for industrial discharges and an incremental increase in salinity over the supply water for municipal discharges. The Forum addressed the issue of intercepted ground water under the 1977 policy, and adopted a specific policy dealing with that type of discharge.

A specific water use and associated discharge which has not been here-to-fore considered is discharges from fish hatcheries. This policy is limited exclusively to discharges from fish hatcheries within the Colorado River Basin. The discharges from fish hatcheries need to be addressed in a manner consistent with the 1977 and 1980 Forum policies.

The basic policy for discharges from fish hatcheries shall permit an incremental increase in salinity of 100 mg/L or less above the flow weighted average salinity of the intake supply water. The 100 mg/L incremental increase may be waived if the discharged salt load reaching the Colorado River system is less than one ton per day, or 366 tons per year. Evaluation is to be made on a case-by-case basis.

I. The permitting authority may permit a discharge in excess of the 100 mg/L incremental increase at the time of issuance or reissuance of a NPDES discharge permit. Upon satisfactory demonstration by the permittee that it is not practicable to attain the 100 mg/L limit.

II. Demonstration by the applicant must include information on the following factors relating to the potential discharge:

A. Description of the fish hatchery and facilities.

B. Description of the quantity and salinity of intake water sources.

C. Description of salt sources in the hatchery.

D. Description of water rights, including diversions and consumptive use quantities.

E. Description of the discharge, covering location, receiving waters, quantity salt load, and salinity.

B-21 F. Alternative plans for minimizing salt discharge from the hatchery. Alternative plans should include:

1. Description of alternative means of salt control.

2. Cost of alternative plans in dollars per ton, of salt removed from discharge.

G. Such other information pertinent to demonstration of non-practicability as the permitting authority may deem necessary.

III. In determining what permit conditions shall be required, the permit-issuing authority shall consider the following criteria including, but not limited to:

A. The practicability of achieving the 100 mg/L incremental increase.

B. Where the 100 mg/L incremental increase is not determined to be practicable:

1. The impact of the proposed salt input of each alternative on the lower main stem in terms of tons per year and concentration.

2. Costs per ton of salt removed from discharge of each alternative plan.

3. Capability of minimizing the salt discharge.

IV. If, in the opinion of the permitting authority, the database for the hatchery is inadequate, the permit will contain the requirement that the discharger monitor the water supply and the discharge for salinity. Such monitoring program shall be completed within two years and the discharger shall then present the information as specified above.

V. All new and reissued NPDES permits for all hatcheries shall require monitoring of the salinity of the intake water supply and the effluent at the time of peak fish population.

A. Analysis for salinity may be either as total dissolved solids (TDS) or be electrical conductivity where a satisfactory correlation with TDS has been established. The correlation should be based on a minimum of five different samples

B-22

APPENDIX C

States NPDES Permits List

NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

AZ0023311 900 APS/CHOLLA POWER PLANT 273.6 I-6 AZ0025399 900 BISON RANCH 0.04 M-6 AZ0023035 930 BLUE BEACON OF KINGMAN 0.03 I-3 AZ0024015 900 CANYON-VALLE AIRPORT WWTP 0.045 M-3 AZ0023990 930 CAWCD-HAVASU PUMPING PLANT 1.5 I AZ0022268 930 PHELPS DODGE BAGDAD COPPER DIV 0 I-6 AZ0024902 900 ESTATES AT PINE CANYON WWTP 0.77 M-3 AZ0020427 900 FLAGSTAFF, CITY OF WILDCAT HILL POTW <400 6 M AZ0023639 900 FLAGSTAFF, CITY OF RIO DE FLAG POTW <400 4 M AZ0024279 900 HIGH COUNTRY PINES 0.036 M-6 AZ0025542 900 HOLBROOK, CITY OF PAINTED MESA POTW 1.3 M-3 AZ0022489 930 KINGMAN, CITY OF DOWNTOWN POTW 75 0.52 0.16 M AZ0022756 930 PETRO STOP CENTER/KINGMAN 0.008 I-3 AZ0025437 900 PINETOP LAKESIDE SANITARY DISTRICT WWTP 2 M-7 AZ0023752 940 QUARTZSITE, CITY OF POTW <400 0.45 M AZ0024422 900 SANDERS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 WWTP <400 0.04 M AZ0023841 900 SHOW LOW, CITY OF POTW <400 1.42 M AZ0024287 900 SNOWFLAKE, CITY OF POTW <400 0.6 M AZ0023477 900 SOUTH GRAND CANYON SANITARY DISTRICT WWTP <400 0.75 M AZ0110248 920 USBR/DAVIS DAM 0.027 I-7 AZ0110019 900 USBR/ CRSP 350 0.015 0.02 M AZ0025666 900 USBR/GLEN CANYON SUMPS 500 0.85 I-3 AZ0025160 910 USBR/HOOVER DAM 150 0.045 0.03 M AZ0025224 900 USFS/ BLACK MESA WWTP 0.01 M-6 AZ0023612 900 USNPS/GRAND CANYON/ DESERT VIEW <400 0.04 M AZ0110426 900 USNPS/GRAND CANYON/NORTH RIM 0.15 M-3 AZ0023621 900 USNPS/GRAND CANYON/INDIAN GARDENS <100 1.008 I AZ0022152 900 USNPS/GRAND CANYON/SOUTH RIM <400 0.75 M AZ0023523 920 USNPS/KATHERINE'S LANDING WTP <100 0.2 M AZ0023655 905 VIRGIN RIVER DOMESTIC WASTEWATER IMP DISTRICT <400 0.04 M AZ0024356 900 WILLIAMS, CITY OF POTW 0.54 M-3 AZ0023833 900 WINSLOW, CITY OF POTW <400 2.2 M

CA7000016 940 PG&E TOPOCK 500 0.030 0.00 I-2 CA7000005 940 USBR, PARKER DAM AND POWER PLANT DWF 560 0.009 0.02 M

C-3 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

COG600995 300 #10 ENTERPRISE, INC. I-7 COG584012 190 ALMONT WWTP 476 0.022 0.04 M COG588012 190 ALMONT WWTP 386 0.013 0.02 M CO0026468 801 AMORELLI, JOE AND CHERYL 550 0.004 0.01 M-4A COG600476 510 ANDRIKOPOULOS, A.G., RESOURCES 4715 0.536 10.53 I-5A COG600756 100 ANTERO RESOURCES PIPELINE CORP 492 19.633 40.28 I-5A CO0026387 100 ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SAN DISTRCT 594 1.482 3.67 M COG600078 100 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY I-2 CO0022721 100 ASPEN VILLAGE, INC. 394 0.026 0.04 M COG584085 100 ASPEN VILLAGE, INC. 381 0.023 0.04 M COG588085 100 ASPEN VILLAGE, INC. 316 0.028 0.04 M COG600993 300 ASPEN WELL OPERATING, LLC 106 0.44 I-7 COG600255 100 ASPEN, CITY OF I-1 COG640066 100 ASPEN, CITY OF 306 0.034 0.04 I COG641066 100 ASPEN, CITY OF 312 0.029 0.04 I COG600371 100 ASPEN, CITY OF - WATER DEPT. 291 0.003 0.00 I COG600426 100 ASPEN, CITY OF - WATER DEPT. 223 0.002 0.00 I COG600693 100 ASPEN, CITY OF - WATER DEPT. 103 0.002 0.00 I COG588020 801 BAILEY, FRITZ L & REBECCA D 433 0.009 0.02 M COG584020 801 BAILEY, FRITZ L & REBECCA D. 405 0.006 0.01 M COG584063 100 BASALT SANITATION DISTRICT 304 0.377 0.48 M COG588063 100 BASALT SANITATION DISTRICT 256 0.366 0.39 M COG640095 100 BASALT, TOWN OF 89 0.004 0.00 I COG641095 100 BASALT, TOWN OF 89 0.005 0.00 I COG584028 100 BATTLEMENT MESA METRO DISTRICT 582 0.454 1.10 M COG640068 100 BATTLEMENT MESA METRO DISTRICT I-1 CO0020273 801 BAYFIELD SANITATION DISTRICT 256 0.258 0.28 M COG582037 801 BAYFIELD SANITATION DISTRICT 344 0.013 0.02 M COG589034 801 BAYFIELD, TOWN OF 337 0.017 0.02 M CO0044377 220 BEAR COAL COMPANY 3351 0.012 0.17 I COG600510 310 BEAR, REUDI 2060 72.846 625.89 I-5A COG584074 100 BLUE CREEK RANCH LLC 0.000 M-2 COG588074 100 BLUE CREEK RANCH LLC 338 0.004 0.01 M COG584068 310 BLUE JAY RESTAURANT AND LODGE 0.001 M-2 COG588068 310 BLUE JAY RESTAURANT AND LODGE 629 0.002 0.01 M CO0038024 510 BLUE MOUNTAIN ENERGY, INC. 864 0.003 0.01 I CO0038024 510 BLUE MOUNTAIN ENERGY, INC. 864 0.003 0.01 I CO0020826 100 WASTEWATER T.P. 284 1.288 1.53 M CO0044776 220 BOWIE RESOURCES LIMITED 1385 0.011 0.07 I CO0021539 100 BRECKENRIDGE SAN DISTRICT 230 0.819 0.79 M-4B CO0029211 100 BRECKENRIDGE SAN DISTRICT 195 0.007 0.01 M CO0027197 100 BRECKENRIDGE SANITATION DIST. 300 0.001 0.00 M COG641119 100 BRECKENRIDGE SKI RESORT 30 0.000 I-7 COG640020 100 BRECKENRIDGE, TOWN OF I-1 COG640053 100 BRECKENRIDGE, TOWN OF I-1 COG641020 100 BRECKENRIDGE, TOWN OF I-2 COG641053 100 BRECKENRIDGE, TOWN OF I-2 CO0045217 190 BROOKWAY IRWIN, LLC M-2 CO0034142 500 BTU EMPIRE CORPORATION 1323 1.059 5.84 I-5A COG588072 100 C LAZY U RANCH, INC. 205 95.639 81.73 M

C-4 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

COG600828 500 CALCON CONSTRCUTION, INC. 350 0.006 0.01 I CO0047376 310 CAMP RED CLOUD 329 0.003 0.00 M COG584003 100 CANYON CREEK ESTATES AND HOA 422 0.011 0.02 M COG588081 100 CANYON CREEK ESTATES WWTF 442 0.013 0.02 M COG500179 801 CANYON SAND AND GRAVEL I-1 COG640094 100 CARBONDALE, CITY OF I-1 COG641094 100 CARBONDALE, CITY OF I-2 COG584050 100 CARBONDALE, TOWN OF 247 0.680 0.70 M COG588050 100 CARBONDALE, TOWN OF 237 0.655 0.65 M COG640027 100 CARBONDALE, TOWN OF I-1 COG641027 100 CARBONDALE, TOWN OF I-2 CO0042480 100 CBS OPERATIONS, INC. 2418 0.384 3.87 I-5A CO0031984 220 CEDAREDGE, TOWN OF 208 0.162 0.14 M COG640015 220 CEDAREDGE, TOWN OF 86 0.415 0.15 I COG641015 220 CEDAREDGE, TOWN OF 85 0.031 0.01 I CO0038342 100 CENTRAL APPALACHIA MINING, LLC 1979 0.017 0.14 I CO0038342 100 CENTRAL APPALACHIA MINING, LLC 1979 0.017 0.14 I CO0040827 100 CENTRAL APPALACHIA MINING, LLC 0.003 I-2 CO0032638 500 CHEVRON MINING INC, THE 4403 0.026 0.48 I COG600985 100 CHEVRON USA, INC. I-1 CO0033260 300 CLIFTON SANITATION DISTRICT #1 596 0.117 0.29 M CO0033791 300 CLIFTON SANITATION DISTRICT #2 606 1.067 2.70 M COG584075 300 CO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 0.001 M-7 COG584076 300 CO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 0.001 M-2 COG588076 100 CO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 280 0.001 0.00 M COG588075 100 CO. DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 360 0.001 0.00 M COX042731 200 CO. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 574 I-7 CO0046566 100 CO. MTN. RESORT INVESTORS, LLC 0.068 M-7 CO0040487 100 COLLBRAN, TOWN OF 739 0.087 0.27 M COG584032 100 COLO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 290 0.018 0.02 M COG588032 220 COLO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 310 0.023 0.03 M COG600141 500 COLO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 1004 I-2 CO0042731 100 COLO. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 0 COG584067 100 COLO. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 204 0.001 0.00 M COG588067 100 COLO. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 356 0.001 0.00 M COG600393 300 COLO. DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 235 0.000 I-2 COG130001 100 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 9.950 I-5D COG130004 190 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 3.868 I-5D COG130005 801 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 2.204 I-5D COG130006 190 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 4.413 I-5D COG130007 100 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 2.154 I-5D COG130011 100 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 4.455 I-5D CO0045161 500 COLOWYO COAL COMPANY L.P. 1444 0.099 0.59 I COG600561 300 COLOWYO COAL COMPANY L.P. I-1 COG600582 100 COLOWYO COAL COMPANY L.P. I-1 COG600757 500 COLOWYO COAL COMPANY L.P. I-2 COG600700 100 COMPLETE PRODUCTION SERVICES I-1 COG500245 500 CONNELL RESOURCES, INC. 205 1.429 1.22 1-5A COG641068 300 CONSOLIDATED METROPOLITAN DIST I-2 COG600036 100 COPPER MOUNTAIN, INC I-2

C-5 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

CO0021598 100 COPPER MTN CONS METRO DISTRICT 267 0.229 0.25 M COG600958 100 CORDILLERAN COMP. SVCS. INC. I-1 CO0020125 801 CORTEZ SANITATION DISTRICT 488 0.219 0.45 M CO0027545 801 CORTEZ SANITATION DISTRICT 397 0.630 10.43 M CO0027880 801 CORTEZ SANITATION DISTRICT 391 0.560 0.91 M CO0036251 310 COTTER CORPORATION 1857 0.011 0.08 I COG600254 100 COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING ASSN. 609 0.025 0.06 I CO0040037 500 CRAIG, CITY OF 1.016 M-7 CO0037729 220 CRAWFORD, TOWN OF 204 0.743 0.63 M COG584045 190 CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH METRO DIST 286 0.063 0.08 M COG588045 190 CRESTED BUTTE SOUTH METRO DIST 300 0.058 0.07 M CO0020443 190 CRESTED BUTTE, TOWN OF 201 0.188 0.16 M COG600540 190 CROWN-KUNKLER RESIDENCE I-1 COG600648 100 DAVID NESSLEIN I-1 COG584054 801 DAVIS, ROBERT H., JR. M-1 COG588054 801 DAVIS, ROBERT H., JR. M-2 COG584043 100 DEBEQUE, TOWN OF 707 0.033 0.10 M CO0039641 220 DELTA, CITY OF 953 1.035 4.11 M COG640006 100 DILLON, TOWN OF 0 0.034 0.00 I COG641006 100 DILLON, TOWN OF 59 0.073 0.02 I CO0040509 801 DOLORES, TOWN OF 390 0.093 0.15 M COG582039 310 DOVE CREEK, TOWN OF 606 0.034 0.09 M CO0023876 100 DUNDEE REALTY USA, LLC 388 0.007 0.01 M COG582024 801 DURANGO WEST METRO. DIST. #2 568 0.075 0.18 M CO0024082 801 DURANGO, CITY OF 274 1.779 2.04 M CO0021369 100 WATER & SAN. DIST. 292 1.211 1.48 M CO0024431 100 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SAN. DIST. 316 1.945 2.56 M CO0037311 100 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SAN. DIST. 410 1.146 1.96 M CO0021059 100 EAGLE, TOWN OF 387 M-4B COG588080 100 EAGLE, TOWN OF 337 0.527 0.74 M COG640031 100 EAGLE, TOWN OF I-1 COG641031 100 EAGLE, TOWN OF I-2 COG584079 100 EAST RIVER REGIONAL SAN. DIST. 157 0.087 0.06 M COG588079 100 EAST RIVER REGIONAL SAN. DIST. 172 0.055 0.04 M CO0040266 801 EDGEMONT RANCH METRO DISTRICT 316 0.028 0.04 M COG584029 100 EL ROCKO MOBILE HOME PARK 168 0.014 0.01 M COG588029 100 EL ROCKO MOBILE HOME PARK 217 0.008 0.01 M COG500353 300 ELAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. I-1 COG582035 801 ELLIS, JAMES M. III 475 0.008 0.02 M COG600658 510 ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC. 980 I-7 COG600720 510 ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC. 1465 I-7 COG600633 100 ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA), INC. I-2 CO0047562 300 ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES CORP. 356 0.009 0.01 I COG600951 510 ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING I-2 COG600638 510 ENTREGA GAS PIPELINE, INC. 348 0.002 0.00 I CO0046426 500 EUZOA BIBLE CHURCH 308 0.001 0.00 M COG500433 100 EVERIST MATERIALS, LLC 891 I-7 COG850046 100 EXXON COMPANY, USA I-7 COX046027 220 FAIRWAY PINES SANITATION DIST. 0.002 M-2 COG584078 310 FALL CREEK HOA M-1

C-6 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

COG588078 310 FALL CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSN. 574 0.000 M COG584002 801 FITZ PROPERTIES, INC. 285 0.003 0.00 M COG600528 300 FMC PROPERTIES, LLC I-1 COG588030 310 FOREST GROVES ESTATES WWTP 365 0.005 0.01 M COG584025 801 FOREST LAKES METRO DISTRICT 313 0.061 0.08 M COG584030 801 FORREST GROVES HOA 320 0.005 0.01 M COG600556 100 FOUNDERS PARKING ASSOCIATION 1550.000 6.46 I-5A CO0040142 100 FRASER SANITATION DISTRICT 233 0.773 0.75 M CO0020451 100 FRISCO SANITATION DISTRICT 337 0.594 0.83 M COG600916 100 FRISCO SANITATION DISTRICT 324 0.693 0.94 I COG640067 100 FRISCO, TOWN OF I-1 COG641067 100 FRISCO, TOWN OF I-2 CO0046175 100 FRUITA MARKETING & MANAGEMENT I-2 COG583002 100 FRUITA, TOWN OF 490 0.700 1.43 M COG641072 100 GATEWAY METRO DIST. 1176 0.007 0.04 I COG600744 100 GE JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION CO. 2661.050 11.10 I-5A COG600308 100 GLENWOOD HOT SPGS LODGE & POOL 20292 2.978 252.02 I-5A CO0020516 100 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CITY OF 439 1.090 2.00 M COG640052 100 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CITY OF I-1 COG641052 100 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CITY OF I-2 CO0027529 801 GOLD KING MINES CORPORATION I-1 CO0020699 100 GRANBY SANITATION DISTRICT 228 0.373 0.36 M COG600965 100 GRAND COUNTY I-2 COG640044 100 GRAND COUNTY W&S DISTRICT I-1 COG641044 100 GRAND COUNTY W&S DISTRICT I-7 CO0032964 100 GRAND COUNTY W&S DISTRICT #1 M-1 COG640087 100 GRAND COUNTY W&SD #1 I-1 COG641087 100 GRAND COUNTY W&SD #1 I-7 COG500308 300 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE & SUPPLY I-2 COG600759 190 GUNNISON ENERGY CORP. I-1 CO0041530 220 GUNNISON, CITY OF 316 0.753 0.99 M COG640041 220 GUNNISON, COUNTY OF I-1 COG641041 220 GUNNISON, COUNTY OF I-2 CO0047155 190 GYPSUM, TOWN OF 191 0.388 0.31 M COG584064 190 GYPSUM, TOWN OF 198 0.386 0.32 M COG500487 510 HARDROCK CUSTOM CRUSHING LLC I-1 CO0040959 500 HAYDEN, TOWN OF 324 0.187 0.25 M COG584010 801 HERMOSA SANITATION DISTRICT 471 0.110 0.22 M COG588010 801 HERMOSA SANITATION DISTRICT 527 0.116 0.26 M COG600398 100 HOLLAND CREEK METRO DISTRICT 457 6.695 12.76 I-5A COG584084 100 HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, TOWN OF 199 0.070 0.06 M COG588084 100 HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, TOWN OF 279 0.055 0.06 M COG640019 100 HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, TOWN OF 122 0.011 0.01 I COG641019 100 HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, TOWN OF 154 0.011 0.01 I CO0044903 220 HOTCHKISS, TOWN OF 724 0.183 0.55 M COG640091 220 HOTCHKISS, TOWN OF I-1 COG641091 220 HOTCHKISS, TOWN OF I-2 COG600307 100 INDUSTRIAL INSULATION GRP, LLC 2286 0.042 0.40 I COG900008 500 INFINITY OIL & GAS OF WYOMING I-1 COG600791 100 INTRAWEST PLACEMAKING 223 20.100 18.69 I-5A

C-7 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

CO0029599 100 J.E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES 1333 0.022 0.12 I COG588059 310 KANAKUK COLORADO YOUTH CAMP 290 0.007 0.01 M COG500457 801 KIRKLAND CONSTRUCTION, LLLP I-1 COG584071 801 KURPIUS, THOMAS E M-1 COG588071 801 KURPIUS, THOMAS E & SHARON E 308 0.001 0.00 M COG584052 200 L & N, INC. 556 0.006 0.01 M COG588052 200 L & N, INC. 477 0.005 0.01 M COG500120 500 LAFARGE WEST, INC. I-1 COG600330 500 LAKE CATAMOUNT #1 METRO DIST 265 0.048 0.05 I CO0040673 200 LAKE CITY, TOWN OF 279 0.073 0.09 M COG600529 100 LANDMARK CONSULTANTS, INC. 272 5.000 5.68 I-5A COG584005 310 LAST DOLLAR PUD IMPS. ASSOC. 0.006 M-4A COG588005 310 LAST DOLLAR PUD IMPS. ASSOC. 306 0.004 0.01 M COG584049 100 LAZY GLEN HOA 356 0.023 0.04 M COG588049 100 LAZY GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 337 0.030 0.04 M COG582023 801 LEE, RICHARD O. 261 0.009 0.01 M COG600155 801 LINDE, INC. 3817 0.558 8.88 I-5A COG600974 100 LIONSHEAD INN, LLC 693 0.025 0.07 I COG582028 801 LOMA LINDA SANITATION DISTRICT 453 0.051 0.10 M CO0031062 500 LOWELL WHITEMAN SCHOOL CRP THE 262 0.002 0.00 M COG500379 300 M.A. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC 6522 0.480 13.05 I-5A COG600345 100 MAIN ST. STATION BRECKENRIDGE 164 166.400 113.75 I-5A COG588002 801 MANATAKA, INCORPORATED 243 0.002 0.00 M COG640065 801 MANCOS RURAL WATER COMPANY I-1 COG641065 801 MANCOS RURAL WATER COMPANY I-2 CO0047139 510 MEEKER SANITATION DISTRICT 434 0.214 0.39 M COG584042 510 MEEKER SANITATION DISTRICT 429 0.210 0.38 M CO0040053 300 MESA CO./GRAND JUNCTION - CITY 534 7.966 17.73 M COG583001 300 MESA WATER & SANITATION DIST. 573 0.012 0.03 M COG584007 100 MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DIST. 176 0.306 0.22 M COG588105 100 MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DIST. 240 0.318 0.32 M COG588007 100 MID-VALLEY METROPOLITAN DIST. 221 0.328 0.30 M CO0039691 310 MILL CREEK LODGE ESTATES, LLC 469 0.018 0.04 M COG850009 100 MINREC, INC. I-2 COG584035 100 MOBILE HOME MANAGEMENT CORP. 181 0.019 0.01 M COG588035 100 MOBILE HOME MANAGEMENT CORP. 298 0.013 0.02 M COG581016 500 MOFFAT COUNTY IMP. DISTRICT 351 0.009 0.01 M COG589040 500 MOFFAT COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DIST 360 0.007 0.01 M CO0039624 220 MONTROSE, CITY OF 614 2.069 5.30 M COG600506 220 MONTROSE, CITY OF 953 25.000 99.34 I-5A CO0022969 220 MORRISON CREEK METRO W&SD 326 0.041 0.06 M COG640049 500 MOUNT WERNER WATER & SAN DIST I-1 CO0038776 220 MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY, LLC 1814 0.157 1.19 I-5A COG600776 100 MSL, LLC I-7 CO0027171 190 MT. CRESTED BUTTE W&S DISTRICT 166 0.322 0.22 M COG641111 220 MUSTANG WATER AUTHORITY I-2 CO0024007 310 NATURITA, TOWN OF 475 0.065 0.13 M COG584062 100 NEW CASTLE, TOWN OF 316 32.649 43.02 M COG588062 100 NEW CASTLE, TOWN OF 434 0.224 0.41 M COG640092 100 NEW CASTLE, TOWN OF 374 0.012 0.02 I

C-8 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

COG641092 100 NEW CASTLE, TOWN OF 260 0.062 0.07 I COG600697 500 NEW FRONTIER ENERGY, INC. 2550 0.007 0.07 I COG500354 300 NICHOLS GRAVEL PIT LLC I-1 COG500368 801 NIELSONS SKANSKA, INC. I-1 COG584031 190 NORTH ELK MEADOWS HOA 526 0.010 0.02 M COG900010 500 NORTH FINN LLC 1474 0.012 0.07 I COG600959 100 NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORPORATION I-7 COG582038 310 NORWOOD SANITATION DISTRICT 447 0.046 0.09 M COG582002 310 NUCLA SANITATION DISTRICT 964 0.065 0.26 M CO0041106 500 OAK CREEK, TOWN OF 153 0.229 0.15 M COG640057 500 OAK CREEK, TOWN OF 204 0.012 0.01 I CO0045802 100 OAK MEADOWS SERVICE COMPANY 449 0.010 0.02 M COG600452 100 OCCIDENTAL OIL SHALE, INC. I-2 CO0020907 220 OLATHE, TOWN OF 1198 0.342 1.71 M COG500436 300 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP I-1 COG500209 220 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. I-1 COG500310 801 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. 1422 0.036 0.21 I COG500328 801 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. 280 2.168 2.53 I-5A COG500329 190 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. I-1 COG500367 801 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. 2293 1.210 11.58 I-5A COG500412 300 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. I-1 COG500441 300 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC. 226 0.900 0.85 I COG640081 220 ORCHARD CITY, TOWN OF 95 0.027 0.01 I COG641081 220 ORCHARD CITY, TOWN OF 75 0.022 0.01 I COG584041 100 OURAY RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSN. 130 0.006 0.00 M COG588041 100 OURAY RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSN. 152 0.003 0.00 M CO0043222 220 OURAY, CITY OF I-1 CO0043397 220 OURAY, CITY OF 497 0.233 0.48 M COG600544 220 OURAY, CITY OF 1387 0.588 3.40 I-5A COG600767 2220 OURAY, CITY OF I-1 CO0000132 220 OXBOW MINING, LLC 950 0.140 0.55 I COG500463 510 P & S GRAVEL PIT I-1 COG640022 801 PAGOSA AREA W&SD 67 0.011 0.00 I COG640007 801 PAGOSA AREA W&SD . I-1 COG641007 801 PAGOSA AREA WATER & SAN DIST 138 0.020 0.01 I COG641022 801 PAGOSA AREA WATER & SAN DIST 56 0.011 0.00 I COG641085 801 PAGOSA AREA WATER & SAN DIST 146 0.015 0.01 I CO0031755 801 PAGOSA AREA WATER & SAN. DIST. 269 0.636 0.71 M COG582040 801 PAGOSA AREA WATER & SAN. DIST. 363 0.086 0.13 M COG640077 801 PAGOSA AREA WATER & SAN. DIST. I-1 COG641077 801 PAGOSA AREA WATER & SAN. DIST. I-2 CO0022845 801 PAGOSA SPRINGS SAN. DIST. 346 0.239 0.34 M COG584004 300 PALISADE, TOWN OF 325 0.224 0.30 M COG640037 300 PALISADE, TOWN OF I-1 COG641037 300 PALISADE, TOWN OF 0.050 I-2 CO0021709 220 PAONIA, TOWN OF 570 0.210 0.50 M COG600908 100 PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC 633 0.029 0.08 I COG600178 500 PETE LIEN & SONS I-2 COG900011 100 PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA 1862 0.200 1.56 I-5A COG600534 100 PITKIN IRON CORPORATION I-2

C-9 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

CO0023485 300 POWDERHORN METRO DISTRICT NO 1 230 0.008 0.01 M CO0000027 300 PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO 600 17.311 43.29 I-5A COG600536 500 PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO 292 0.029 0.04 I COG581010 801 PURGATORY METROPOLITAN DIST. 713 0.100 0.30 M COG589010 801 PURGATORY METROPOLITAN DIST. 786 0.082 0.27 M COG600741 220 R.A. NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. I-1 COG600563 220 R.A. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES I-1 COG600526 200 RACQUET CLUB OWNER'S ASSN. I-1 COG588051 100 RANCH AT ROARING FORK HOA 389 0.031 0.05 M COG584051 100 RANCH AT ROARING FORK HOA, INC 300 0.028 0.03 M COG584044 510 RANGELY, TOWN OF 392 0.155 0.25 M CO0021385 100 RED CLIFF, TOWN OF 211 0.140 0.12 M COG641117 100 RED CLIFF, TOWN OF I-2 CO0046370 100 REDSTONE WATER & SAN DISTRICT 272 0.016 0.02 M COG600787 100 RELATED WESTPAC, LLC 363 0.008 0.01 I CO0042579 220 RIDGWAY STATE RECREATION AREA M-1 COG588047 310 RIDGWAY, CITY OF 375 0.084 0.13 M COG584047 220 RIDGWAY, TOWN OF 327 0.070 0.10 M COG584024 100 RIFLE, CITY OF 899 0.665 2.49 M COG584053 100 RIFLE, CITY OF 532 0.103 0.23 M COG641107 100 RIFLE, CITY OF I-2 COG641108 100 RIFLE, CITY OF 358 0.122 0.18 I COG584006 100 RIVERBEND SUBDIVISION WWTF 1795 0.011 0.08 M COG588006 100 RIVERBEND SUBDIVISION WWTF 1722 0.011 0.08 M COG588066 100 RIVERSBEND APARTMENTS WWTF 263 0.002 0.00 M COG584066 220 RIVERSBEND HOA 168 0.002 0.00 M COG584048 510 RIVERSIDE SANITATION, INC. I-1 COG588048 510 RIVERSIDE SANITATION, INC. 0.003 M-2 CO0044750 100 ROARING FORK WATER & SAN DIST 0.036 M-4A COG584083 100 ROCK GARDENS MHP & CAMPGROUND 0.002 M-4A COG588083 100 ROCK GARDENS MHP & CAMPGROUND 543 0.003 0.01 M COG582020 500 ROUTT CO. FOR PHIPPSBURG COMM 473 0.011 0.02 M COG589026 500 ROUTT CO. FOR PHIPPSBURG COMM. 469 0.013 0.03 M COG584037 500 ROUTT COUNTY FOR MILNER COMM. 335 0.016 0.02 M COG588037 500 ROUTT COUNTY FOR MILNER COMM. 374 0.014 0.02 M COG584013 801 SAN JUAN RIVER VILLAGE METRO 143 0.087 0.05 M COG588013 801 SAN JUAN RIVER VILLAGE METRO 190 0.031 0.03 M COG600436 200 SANCTUARY/SNOWMASS CONDO ASSOC 306 11.430 14.60 I-5A COG500241 801 SANDCO, INC. I-1 CO0043753 310 SAVAGE MINING & OIL CO., INC. 340 0.018 0.03 I CO0000221 500 SENECA COAL COMPANY 2519 0.144 1.51 I-5A COG600162 510 SHELL FRONTIER OIL & GAS, INC. 300.000 1.25 I-5A COG600523 510 SHELL FRONTIER OIL & GAS, INC. 5740 110.200 2637.73 I-5A COG600659 510 SHELL FRONTIER OIL & GAS, INC. I-2 COG600677 500 SIDNEY PEAK RANCH 4296 0.014 0.25 I COG641112 100 SILT TOWN OF 549 0.042 0.10 I COG584046 100 SILT, TOWN OF 921 0.209 0.81 M COG588046 100 SILT, TOWN OF 643 0.207 0.56 M COG600507 200 SILVERTHORNE, TOWN OF I-1 CO0020311 801 SILVERTON, TOWN OF 209 0.114 0.10 M

C-10 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

COG640008 801 SILVERTON, TOWN OF 111 0.005 0.00 I COG641008 801 SILVERTON, TOWN OF 139 0.005 0.00 I COG600439 300 SLATE RIVER RESOURCES, LLC I-1 CO0027146 300 SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY, INC. 1282 0.406 2.17 I-5A CO0023086 100 SNOWMASS WATER & SAN DISTRICT 163 0.819 0.56 M COG600622 100 SONNENALP RESORT OF VAIL I-1 CO0031810 100 SOPRIS VILLAGE HOA, INC. 0.027 M-4A COG588057 801 SOUTH DURANGO SANITATION DIST 492 0.092 0.19 M COG584057 801 SOUTH DURANGO SANITATION DIST. 545 0.095 0.22 M CO0046124 100 SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DIST. 397 0.035 0.06 M COX045331 100 SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DIST. GW COG584033 310 ST. BARNABAS CHURCH CAMPS, INC M-1 COG588033 310 ST. BARNAVAS CHURCH CAMPS, INC M-7 COG600603 500 STEAMBOAT HEALTH & REC ASSOC. 809 0.008 0.03 I CO0035556 500 STEAMBOAT LAKE W&SD 352 0.014 0.02 M CO0020834 500 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CITY OF 168 2.267 1.59 M COG600127 500 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CITY OF I-1 COG600600 500 STEAMBOAT VENTURES LTD. I-1 CO0029955 100 SUMMIT CO BOARD OF COMMISS 252 0.618 0.65 M CO0038598 100 SUNLIGHT, INC. 124 0.012 0.01 I COG584086 300 SW MESA CO RURAL PUB IMP DIST M-1 COG588086 300 SW MESA CO RURAL PUB IMP DIST 1113 0.006 0.03 M CO0045501 100 TABERNASH MEADOWS W&SD 288 0.039 0.05 M COG584061 100 TALBOTT ENTERPRISES, INC. 1503 0.055 0.35 M COG588061 100 TALBOTT ENTERPRISES, INC. 1470 0.060 0.37 M COG584021 310 TELECAM PARTNERSHIP II LIMITED 445 0.006 0.01 M COG588021 310 TELECAM PARTNERSHIP II LIMITED 415 0.011 0.02 M COG600819 310 TELLURIDE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT 135 20.000 11.26 I-5A CO0041840 310 TELLURIDE, TOWN OF 274 0.701 0.80 M COG640024 310 TELLURIDE, TOWN OF 128 0.007 0.00 I COG641024 310 TELLURIDE, TOWN OF 126 0.009 0.01 I COG500281 500 TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. I-1 CO0032115 500 TRAPPER MINING, INC. 1373 0.163 0.93 I CO0042447 100 TRI-STATE GEN & TRANS ASSN. 2452 0.019 0.19 I CO0000540 310 TRI-STATE GENERATN &TRANSMISSN 1964 0.276 2.26 I-5A CO0027154 500 TWENTYMILE COAL COMPANY 3650 0.001 0.02 I CO0036684 500 TWENTYMILE COAL COMPANY 4047 0.021 0.35 I CO0042161 500 TWENTYMILE COAL COMPANY 0.000 I-2 COG584070 100 TWO RIVERS VILLAGE METRO DIST 0.004 M-7 COG588070 100 TWO RIVERS VILLAGE METRO DIST 623 0.011 0.03 M CO0041548 300 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY I-2 CO0035394 190 U.S. MOLY CORP. 953 0.344 1.37 I-5A CO0043591 300 UMETCO MINERALS CORP-JHN BROWN I-1 COG600277 100 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 2077 32.862 284.60 I-5A COG640105 100 UPPER EAGLE REG WATER AUTH. 214 0.023 0.02 I COG641105 100 UPPER EAGLE REG WATER AUTH. 245 0.275 0.28 I COG640058 100 UPPER EAGLE REG WATER AUTHORTY 224 0.002 0.00 I COG641058 100 UPPER EAGLE REG WATER AUTHORTY 481 0.417 0.84 I COG584011 801 UPPER VALLEY SANITATION, INC. 115 0.028 0.01 M CO0047147 801 UPPER VALLEY WATER & SAN DIST. 125 0.032 0.02 M

C-11 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

COG640104 220 USCDWUA 96 0.134 0.05 I COG641104 220 USCDWUA 100 0.098 0.04 I COG640070 300 UTE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT I-1 COG641070 300 UTE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT I-2 COG600242 100 VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. I-1 COG600381 100 VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. I-2 COG500134 220 VALCO, INC. I-1 COG584026 801 VALLECITO RESORT LLC M-1 COG588026 801 VALLECITO RESORT, LLC 433 0.008 0.01 M COG600409 100 VILLAGE AT COPPER ASSOCIATION I-1 CO0037702 801 VISTA VERDE VILLAGE, LLC 347 0.012 0.02 M CO0042617 220 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA CARE FAC 223 0.009 0.01 M CO0037206 220 WALKER RUBY MINING COMPANY,INC 94 5.000 1.96 I-5A COG581002 100 WASTE WATER TREATMENT SERVICES 586 0.030 0.07 M COG589001 100 WASTE WATER TREATMENT SERVICES 434 0.033 0.06 M COG600706 100 WEITZ COMPANY I-2 COG600602 100 WEITZ COMPANY, THE I-1 COG584008 100 WEST GLENWOOD SPRINGS SAN DIST 138 0.310 0.18 M COG588008 100 WEST GLENWOOD SPRINGS SAN DIST 174 0.313 0.23 M CO0030449 220 WEST MONTROSE SANITATION DIST 397 0.288 0.48 M CO0000213 310 WESTERN FUELS-COLORADO, LLC 1675 0.343 2.40 I-5A COG500123 220 WHITEWATER BUILDING MATERIALS I-1 COG600949 100 WILLIAMS FIELD SERVICES, LLC I-2 COG600950 100 WILLIAMS FIELD SERVICES, LLC I-1 CO0026051 100 WINTER PARK WATER & SAN DIST 237 0.138 0.14 M CO0000051 100 WINTER RIDGE ENERGY, LLC 1748 0.823 6.00 I-5A COG600443 300 WOLF CREEK RIFLE, LLC I-1 COG600788 100 WOODRUN PLACE CONDOS HOA BOARD I-1 COG588103 100 WOODY CREEK MOBILE HOA 373 0.014 0.02 M CO0046931 310 WYNNE, LEE 450 0.019 0.04 I CO0030635 500 YAMPA, TOWN OF 215 0.036 0.03 M CO0045411 100 YOUNG LIFE CAMPAIGN, INC. 378 0.008 0.01 M

NV0021261 910 CCSD AWT Plant 1 1230 46.330 237.63 M-5A NV0021563 920 CCSD Laughlin 417 2.180 3.79 M-6* NV0022837 910 Circle K Stores Inc ND ND I-5E NV0022730 910 D&G Oil Cancelled I-5E NV0022721 910 Exxon #7-3868 Inactive I-5E NV0022845 910 Harrah's Las Vegas ND ND I NV0022098 910 Henderson WRF 1300 15.800 85.65 M-5A NV0021750 910 Hilton Hotel & Casino 1740 0.026 0.19 I-5E NV0023060 910 Kerr McGee 6348 1.420 37.59 I NV0000078 910 Kerr McGee (001a) 370 0.620 0.96 I NV0000078 910 Kerr McGee (001b) 790 0.344 1.13 I NV0000078 910 Kerr McGee (002a) 100 0.001 0.00 I NV0000078 910 Kerr McGee (002b) 2743 0.432 4.94 I NV0000078 910 Kerr McGee (003b) 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 NV0022691 910 Lake Las Vegas ND ND I NV0020133 910 Las Vegas WWTP 691 63.640 183.38 M-5A NV0022748 910 Las Vegas, City of (Bonneville) 1460 0.016 0.09 I-5E

C-12 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

NV0022250 910 Lowes HIW, Inc. Inactive I-5E NV0021950 910 LV-Municipal Strom Drain Syst. 0.00 M-5A NV0022641 910 Marnell Carrao for Bellagio Inactive I-2 NV0020192 910 NDOW - Lade Mead ND ND I-5D NV0020923 910 Pioneer Chlor Alkali #7 ND ND I-2 NV0022446 910 Rebel Oil Company Inactive I-2 NV0022896 910 Red Rock Mini Mart Inactive I-2 NV0022594 910 Secor/7-eleven #13702 Inactive I-5E NV0022608 910 Secor/7-eleven #29643 Inactive I-5E NV0022772 910 Signature Homes 5480 0.296 6.76 I-7 NV0022802 910 Southland Corp - #20084 Inactive I-5E NV0022829 910 Southland Corp - #20084 Inactive I-5E NV0022811 910 Southland Corp - #20084 Inactive I-5E NV0022870 910 Southland Corp - #20084 0.002 0.00 I-5E NV0021679 910 Stallion Mountain Country Club 5700 0.00 I-5B/E NV0000060 910 Titanium Metals (TIMET) 698 3.000 8.73 I NV0022781 910 Tomiyasu Basement Dewatering 3500 0.068 0.99 I-5E NV0022420 910 Union Oil Company ND ND I-5E NV0021865 910 US NPS - Callville Bay Cancelled M NV0021873 910 US NPS - Echo Bay WTP Cancelled M NV0021881 910 US NPS - Las Vegas Bay WTP Inactive M NV0021890 910 US NPS - Overton Beach Cancelled M NV0022543 910 USA #100 Inactive I-5E NV0022195 910 Valley Hospital 992 0.005 0.02 I-5E NV0022888 910 Venetian, The 744 0.015 0.05 I-5E

NM0030317 801 Blanco MDWA (WTP) NM0028142 801 Bloomfield Municipal Schools 705 0.002 0.01 I* NM0030902 801 Bloomfield Water 296 0.224 0.00 I* NM0029319 801 Central Consolidated School District 730 0.050 0.15 I* NM0020168 801 City of Aztec WWTP 520 1.000 2.17 M* NM0028762 801 City of Aztec WTP I-7* NM0020770 801 City of Bloomfield 306 0.800 1.00 M* NM0000043 801 City of Farmington, Animas Steam Plant - - I* NM0023396 900 Ramah Water & Sanitation Dist. - 0.058 - M-7* NM0030520 801 Dulce, Village of/ WWTP 0.600 M7* NM0028258 801 Farmington Sand & Gravel Co. - - - I-2* NM0020583 801 Farmington WWTP 452 6.670 13.00 M5A* NM0027995 801 Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. 0.700 1.50 I-7* NM0020672 900 Gallup WWTP 275 3.500 4.00 M* NM0029025 801 Harper Valley Subd. 300 0.069 0.12 M* NM0030953 801 DWC & NSW, Inc 0.004 I-2* NM0028606 801 Public Service Co of NM - San Juan - - - I-2* NM0020524 900 QUIVIRA MINING COMPANY - CHURCH ROCK 0 0.000 0.00 I-1* NM0029505 801 San Juan Coal Co. - La Plata - - - I-2* NM0028746 801 San Juan Coal Company - San Juan - - - I-2* NM0030473 801 San Juan County McGee Park WWTP 285 0.050 0.06 M* NM0029432 801 Yampa Mining Co. (De-na-zin Mine) - - - I-2* NM0029475 801 Yampa Mining Co. (Gatew.) - - - I-2*

C-13 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

UT0021091 610 Altamont, City of - - - M-1 UTG040007 600 Andalex Wildcat Loadout 0 0.000 0.00 I UT0025674 600 Andalex-Pinnacle Coal Mine 1585 1.100 7.27 I-A UTG040008 600 Andalex-Pinnacle Coal Mine 2123 0.440 3.90 I-1 UT0025453 600 Ark Land Co. - - - I-1 UTG640027 411 Ashely Valley WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG640003 411 Ashley Springs WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0024511 411 Ashley Valley Sewer Board - - - M-1 UT0025348 411 Ashley Valley Water & Sewer, Mechanical 490 4.100 8.37 M UTG640019 802 Blanding Culinary Water Treatment 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0025500 905 Blue Bunny Ice Cream - - - I-1 UTG040011 600 Canyon Fuel Co.- Banning Loadout 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0024759 600 Canyon Fuel Co.- Dugout Mine 1280 1.000 5.30 I-A UTG040020 600 Canyon Fuel Co.- Dugout Mine - - - I-1 UT0023540 600 Canyon Fuel Co.- Skyline Mine 650 6.100 16.50 I-A UT0022918 700 Canyon Fuel Co.- SUFCo Mine 687 3.750 10.75 I-5E UT0023680 600 Canyon Fuel Co.-Soldier Creek Coal 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0023663 710 Castle Valley SSD-Castle Dale 1535 0.100 0.64 M UT0020052 710 Castle Valley SSD-Ferron 967 0.180 0.73 M UT0021296 710 Castle Valley SSD-Huntington 1900 0.240 1.90 M-5A UTG790017 610 Chevron-Myton Pumping Station (Earthfax Eng.) - - - I-1 UTG040026 700 Consolodated Coal Co.-Hidden Valley Mine Site 1010 0.120 0.51 I UT0022616 700 Consolodated Coal Co.-Underground 3309 0.775 6.73 I-5E UTG040006 700 CO-OP Mining Co. 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UTG040016 600 Cypres Blackhawk - - - I-1 UT0023736 600 Cyprus Plateau Mining Co.(Star Point Mine) 0 0.000 0.00 I-1 UT0020095 610 Duchesne City Corp. 1275 0.390 2.10 M UTG640028 610 Duchesne Cvalley WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG640014 411 Dutch John WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG640012 600 E. Carbon City-Sunnyside CWTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG640030 710 Emery WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG640039 710 Ferron WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0024368 710 Genwal Resources, Inc.-Crandall Canyon Mine 510 0.900 1.91 I-A UTG640017 600 Green River WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0025232 600 Green River, City of 0 0.000 0.00 M-1 UTG790021 905 Haycock Petroleum Remediation Site 4800 0.008 0.15 I UT0023094 600 Hiawatha Coal Co. 729 0.380 1.15 I-5E UT0021792 411 Hollansworth & Travis 0 0.000 0.00 I-1 UTG040019 600 Horizon Coal 458 0.504 0.96 I UTG640040 710 Huntington WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0024015 411 Intermountain Concrete 1800 0.070 0.50 I UT0023922 300 International Uranium Dension Mines 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UTG040013 600 IPA Horse Canyon 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0025488 600 J.W. Operating Corp. 860 0.062 0.22 I UT0025534 710 James Canyon Well System 224 4.900 4.58 I UTG640023 411 Manilla WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0020419 300 Moab, City of 410 1.100 1.88 M UT0024503 802 Monticello 0 0.000 0.00 M-2 UTG640015 802 Monticello City (Culinary WTP) 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG040004 600 Mountain Coal Co.-Gordon Creek Mine 0 0.000 0.00 I-2

C-14 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

UTG640008 610 Myton Community Water System 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG040010 600 NEICO 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0023001 610 Neola Town Water & Sewer Assoc. - 0.880 - M-3 UTG790014 600 Olsen-Durrant (Former Bulk Fuel Facility) - 0.058 - I-3 UTG640031 710 Orangeville WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0000094 600 PacifiCorp-Carbon 2467 0.250 2.57 I-5B UT0023604 710 PacifiCorp-Deer Creek 472 0.500 0.98 I UTG040022 710 PacifiCorp-DesBeeDove - - - I-1 UTG040009 710 PacifiCorp-Hunter Coal Prep 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0025607 710 PacifiCorp-Huntington - - 1.83 I-7 UTG040003 710 PacifiCorp-Trail Mountain - - - I-1 UT0023728 710 PacifiCorp-Trail Mountain Mine 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0022896 710 PacifiCorp-Wilberg 755 0.040 0.13 I UTG640035 600 Price City WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0021814 600 Price River Water Imp. Dist. 1232 1.570 8.06 M UTG640034 600 Price River WID 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG040012 600 RAG Plateau Mining Corp. 0 0.000 0.00 I UTG130016 700 Road Creek Trout - - - I-1 UTG040005 600 Savage Industries Coal Terminal (CV-Spur) 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0025224 905 Springdale 815 0.200 0.68 M UTG640021 905 St. George WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UT0024686 905 St. George, City of 1125 9.000 42.20 M UTG040025 600 Star Point Refuse Pile(Sunnyside Cogen) 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0024759 600 Sunnyside Cogen. 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0025399 710 Talon Resources - - - I-1 UTG640002 610 Tridell-Lapoint Water IDWTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG130003 700 UDWR-Egan/Bicknell FH 186 10.140 7.87 I-5D UTG130007 700 UDWR-Loa FH 174 8.900 4.17 I-5D UTG130012 610 UDWR-Whiterocks 234 5.400 5.27 I-5D UT0020338 411 USBOR- - 0.003 - M-3 UTG130001 411 USFWS-Jones Hole NFH 185 7.000 5.40 I-5D UTG640006 700 USNPS-Capitol Reef WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG640004 700 USNPS-Glen Canyon Hite WTP 0 0.000 0.00 M-6 UTG040024 710 Utah American Energy-Lila Canyon Mine 0 0.000 0.00 I-2 UT0025640 600 West Ridge Mine 1153 0.206 0.99 I-A UTG040023 600 West Ridge Mine - - - I-1 UTG040021 600 White Oak Mine - - - I-1 UT0000035 411 Whiting Oil & Gas (fornerly Equity Oil) 1330 1.210 6.71 I-5E UT0000124 411 Whiting Oil & Gas (fornerly Equity Oil) 1430 1.310 7.81 I-5E UT0021768 411 Whiting Oil & Gas (fornerlyCIMA-Sonoma) 1800 0.400 3.00 I-5E

WY0054224 401 AntiCline Disposal, LLC <500 I-2 WY0054232 401 AntiCline Disposal, LLC <500 I-2 WY0022888 500 Baggs, Town of 0.00 0.00 M-7 WY0020133 401 Big Piney, Town of 750.0 0.02 0.06 M WY0028886 401 Black Butte Coal Company 0.00 0.00 I WY0030261 401 Black Butte Coal Company 0.00 0.00 I WY0033448 401 BP America Production Company 0.00 0.00 I-1 WY0030350 401 Bridger Coal Company 0.00 0.00 I WY0032697 411 Chevron, Inc. 0.00 0.00 I

C-15 NPDES PERMITS Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

WY0023132 411 Church and Dwight Company, Inc. 0.00 0.00 I WY0036021 500 Dixon, Town of (Water Treatment Plant) 0.00 0.00 I-6 WY0021938 500 Dixon, Town of 400.0 0.01 0.02 M WY0042145 500 Double Eagle Petroleum and Mining Company 1740.0 0.18 1.31 I WY0054038 500 Double Eagle Petroleum and Mining Company 0.00 0.00 I-2 WY0032450 401 ExxonMobil Corporation 0.00 0.00 I WY0032689 401 ExxonMobil Corporation 0.00 0.00 I WY0022071 411 Fort Bridger Sewer District 400.0 0.20 0.33 M WY0022373 411 Granger, Town of 0.00 0.00 M WY0000027 401 Green River Rock Springs JPWB 0.00 0.00 I-2 WY0020443 401 Green River, City of 650.0 1.50 4.07 M WY0051152 401 Hodder, James 0.00 0.00 I-6 WY0000116 411 Kemmerer-Diamondville Joint Powers Board (WTP) 400.0 0.20 0.33 I WY0020320 411 Kemmerer-Diamondville Joint Powers Board 700.0 0.60 1.75 M WY0022080 401 LaBarge, Town of 700.0 0.15 0.44 M WY0020117 411 Lyman Wastewater Lagoon 1000.0 0.20 0.83 M WY0021997 401 Marbleton, Town of 700.0 0.30 0.88 M WY0022896 401 Mountain View, Town of 600.0 0.30 0.75 M WY0023124 401 Mountain Village Park M-2 WY0052515 401 Newpark Environmental Services 0.00 0.00 I-2 WY0020311 411 PacifiCorp 1242.0 1.30 6.73 I-5B WY0020656 401 Pinedale, Town of 150.0 0.80 0.50 M WY0000051 411 Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Company 0.0 0.00 0.00 I WY0052311 401 PTI Premium Camp Services 500.0 0.03 0.06 M WY0035947 500 Questar Exploration and Production Company 0.00 I-2 WY0022128 401 Regency of Wyoming, Inc. 600.0 0.05 0.13 M WY0022357 401 Rock Springs, City of 850.0 2.50 8.86 M-5 WY0023825 401 Rocky Mountain Coal Company, LLC 0.00 0.00 I WY0033111 411 SF Pipeline, LLC 550.0 0.01 0.02 I WY0026671 401 Summit Lodging 400.0 0.01 0.02 M WY0021806 401 Superior, Town of 0.0 0.00 0.00 M-2 WY0036153 411 Travel Centers of America 0.0 0.00 0.00 I-6 WY0000086 401 Wyoming Game and Fish Department I-7 WY0000094 401 Wyoming Game and Fish Department I-7

C-16

APPENDIX D

USEPA NPDES Permits List

EPA ADMINISTERED NPDES PERMITS

Through December 31, 2007

NPDES # REACH NAME CONCENTRATION FLOW RATE SALT LOAD EXPLANATION MG/L MGD TONS/DAY CODE

Region 6 Permits (none beyond those reported under New Mexico in Appendix C)

Region 8 Permits CO0000086 220 HOTCHKISS NTL. FISH HATCHERY I-5D CO0034398 USDINPS-MESA VERDE NAT PARK (E 0.085 M CO0034398 USDINPS-MESA VERDE NAT PARK (E 0.05 M CO0034665 801 FOUR CORNER MATERIALS I-5A CO0034894 USBOR-ANIMAS-LAPLATA PROJECT 1.00 I

UT0000167 510 AMERICAN GILSONITE CO (E) 3500 I UT0023868 510 ZIEGLER CHEMICAL & MINERAL COR 3500 1.00 I UT0025259 510 LEXCO, INC. (E) 3500 1.00 I

Region 9 Permits AZ0021415 940 COLORADO RIVER SEWAGE SYSTEM 400 mg/l 1.2 M AZ0024619 900 HOPI UPPER MOENKOPI 500 mg/l 0.185 M AZ0022560 900 BIA HOPI KEAMS CANYON 0.036 M-6

NN0000019 801 CO FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT 1.712 I3 NN0028193 801 BHP NAVAJO MINE I6 NN0021610 900 CAMERON TRADING POST 0.054 M-4A NN0028584 801 CONSOLIDATION COAL CO BURNHAM MINE I-6 NN0020133 803 MOUNTAIN STATES PETROLEUM 1200 mg/l 0.03 I NN0020265 802 NTUA CHINLE 0.783 M NN0020281 802 NTUA KAYENTA 0.9 M NN0020290 900 NTUA TUBA CITY 1.1 M NN0020621 801 NTUA SHIPROCK 1M NN0021555 900 NTUA WINDOW ROCK 1.32 M NN0022195 900 NTUA GANADO 0.4 M NN0022471 802 NTUA KAIBETO 0.1 M-6 NN0024228 900 NTUA PINON 0.3 M-6 NN0030335 900 NTUA NAVAJO TOWNSITE 0.32 M NN0022179 900 PEABODY WESTERN COAL CO BLACK MESA I-6 NN0030325 900 RAMAH NAVAJO SCHOOL BOARD, INC - PINEHILL 0.002 M-6 NN0025178 801 RGJ, INC GOULDINGS LODGE, 0.04 M-6 NN0020800 801 BIA NENAHNEZAD BOARDING SCHOOL 0.024 M NN0020869 801 BIA CRYSTAL BOARDING SCHOOL 0.015 M NN0020958 900 BIA WINGATE SCHOOL 0.15 M-6 NN0020991 801 BIA PUEBLO PINTADO 0.016 M NN0021016 801 BIA LAKE VALLEY BOARDING SCHOOL 0.01 M-6 NN0030337 801 BIA JEEHDEEZ'A ACADEMY 0.014 M-6 NN0030339 801 BIA LUKACHUKAI SCHOOL 0.025 M-6 NN0110043 802 BIA NAZLINI BOARDING SCHOOL 0.013 M-6 NN0110094 801 BIA TI'IS NAS BAZ BOARDING SCHOOL 0.08 M-6 NN0110167 900 BIA HUNTERS POINT BOARDING SCHOOL 0.014 M-6 NN0110183 900 BIA SEBA DELKAI SCHOOL 0.01 M-6

D-3

For additional information please contact:

Jack A. Barnett Executive Director Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 106 West 500 South, Suite 101 Bountiful, Utah 84010-6232 (801) 292-4663 [email protected]

Timothy J. Henley Work Group Chairman Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 7450 E. Norwood St Mesa, Arizona 85007 (602) 679-0004 [email protected]